1 CGHC010216322026 2026:CGHC:30232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5044 of 2026 Jatin Batra S/o- Shri Chandraprakash Batra, Aged About 39 Years Occupation Job, R/o- J-3/36, Ground Floor, D.L.F. Phase 2, Sikandarpur, Gurgaon, Haryana, Presently Resident Of House No. 18/3, Harmony Homes, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Gurugram), Haryana, (Pin-122011, Mob- 87555-89894) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Cyber Police Station, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sharma and Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.20 14:33:58 +0530 2 applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Police Station, Surguja Range District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3 (5), 317 (4), 111 of B.N.S and Section 66 (d) I.T. Act, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) Irregular Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Deposit) Act, 2019. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, submitted a written complaint before the In-charge, Cyber Range Police Station, alleging that he is engaged in share-market trading and had received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, including 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211, and 9991991448. The callers allegedly induced him to invest money in share trading by assuring him of high and guaranteed returns. It is alleged that they persuaded the complainant to install mobile applications, namely "Money Trade 365" and "SkyTrade", and thereafter directed him to deposit money through QR codes and online transfers. Believing their representations and after seeing false profits reflected in the applications, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.20,15,000/-. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was implicated in the alleged offence and was arrested on 10.04.2026. Since then, the applicant has been in judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has been arraigned as an accused primarily on the basis of the alleged WhatsApp communications with co-accused Shailendra Shah, whereas no material has been collected 3 during the investigation to establish his involvement in any illegal financial transaction or to show that he received any part of the alleged cheated amount. It is further submitted that the applicant was merely a salaried employee of Instant Global Pay-Tech Private Limited (Go Payments), working as the Regional Sales Head (North), and was only discharging administrative and supervisory duties assigned by the company. He had neither any authority nor any control over the financial transactions or policy decisions of the company and had no role in the operation of the alleged fake applications, namely "Money Trade 165" and "Skytrade". It is also submitted that the applicant had travelled from Gurugram to Jodhpur in connection with the official work of the company and was apprehended during the course of his official visit, thereafter brought to Ambikapur on transit remand, and has remained in judicial custody since 10.04.2026. Learned counsel further submits that no transaction relating to the alleged offence was carried out through the applicant's ID, bank account or electronic device, no amount has been credited to his personal account, and no incriminating article, money, electronic device, cryptocurrency, SIM card or document has been recovered from his possession. It is argued that the allegations regarding technical assistance and transfer of funds are vague and unsupported by any independent material, and except for the alleged electronic chats, there is no cogent evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of the offence or showing that he derived any monetary benefit. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon documentary and electronic evidence already seized by the investigating agency; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is 4 required. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is suffering from a serious gastric ailment, is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the investigation has revealed the active involvement of the applicant in an organised cyber fraud syndicate. It is submitted that the memorandum statements of the co-accused, call detail records, tower location analysis, and the data recovered from the mobile phone of another accused prima facie establish the applicant's role in the creation of GoPayment IDs, which were allegedly used to facilitate the commission of the offence. The investigation further reveals that the applicant was closely associated with the co-accused and had instructed them to delete electronic data after the police initiated the inquiry. It is further alleged that the applicant himself deleted relevant data from his mobile phone in an attempt to conceal electronic evidence. Though similar FIRs have been registered in different States against other members of the syndicate, the material collected during the investigation, coupled with the seriousness of the allegations involving a large-scale economic cyber fraud, prima facie indicates the applicant's involvement in the offence. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 5 diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the applicant has been implicated mainly on the basis of the alleged WhatsApp chats with the co-accused, and that there is no material on record to prima facie show that he was involved in any illegal financial transaction or received any part of the alleged cheated amount, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. It is also noticed that the applicant was merely a salaried employee of the company, no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession, the entire case is based on documentary and electronic evidence already seized by the investigating agency, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he has remained in judicial custody since 10.04.2026. It is further noticed that the co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10072 of 2025, M.Cr.C. No. 10048 of 2025, M.Cr.C. No. 10457 of 2025, and M.Cr.C. No. 10335 of 2025. Prima facie, the role attributed to the present applicant is neither distinguishable from nor graver than that attributed to the aforesaid co-accused persons. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. Further, as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Jatin Batra, involved in Crime No.03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Police Station, Surguja Range District – Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 6 Section 318 (4), 3 (5), 317 (4), 111 of B.N.S and Section 66 (d) I.T. Act, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) Irregular Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Deposit) Act, 2019, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 7 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav