1 CGHC010164852026 2026:CGHC:30719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.4166 of 2026 Mohammad Mukhtar Ansari S/o Late Abdul Fazal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Behrapahari, Thana Maargonda Tehsil And District- Devghar, Jharkhand ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Cyber Cell Police, Thana Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State:Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.04/2026 registered at Police SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.21 11:48:21 +0530 2 Station Cyber Cell Police, Thana Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences under Section 318(4) of BNS as also under Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of IT Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant had placed an online order for four wheel rims through the BOODMO website and paid Rs.4,060/- online. As the order was not reflected, he searched for the company's customer care number on Google, whereafter he received a call from an unknown person posing as a BOODMO customer care executive. On the pretext of processing the refund, the complainant was induced to download the HelpDesk Host application and follow the instructions of the caller, as a result of which his mobile phone was allegedly hacked. Thereafter, on 04.01.2026, an amount of Rs.2,49,988/- was fraudulently withdrawn from his SBI account through multiple online transactions. During investigation, the CDR, subscriber details, Aadhaar-linked KYC records, IP address, linked mobile number, email ID and bank transaction records were collected, which, according to the prosecution, revealed the involvement of the present Applicant. Accordingly, the present crime was registered against him. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant 3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no amount has been recovered from the possession or bank account of the Applicant and there is no material to connect him with the alleged online fraud except the digital evidence collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of CDR, IP address and other electronic records, which are matters of evidence to be tested during trial. It is lastly submitted that Applicant is in jail since 04.04.2026, the investigation is complete, the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be granted regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the material available in the case diary, the fact that no criminal antecedent has been reported against the present Applicant, the period of custody of the Applicant since 04.04.2026, further considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and without further commenting anything on the 4 merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let Applicant-Mohammad Mukhtar Ansari involved in Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Cyber Cell Police, Thana Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences under Section 318(4) of BNS as also under Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of IT Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they 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/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel. In case of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall 5 initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant/s 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 him/them in accordance with law. 7. 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 Priya