1 CGHC010182892026 2026:CGHC:30772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4481 of 2026 Sidharth Sikka S/o. Shri Rajeev Sikka Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Medical Store R/o. House No. 25/16, Pahada Mohalla, Rohtak,police Station Old Sabzi Mandi, Rohtak District- Rohtak, Haryana ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Advocate (through V.C.). For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station, Cyber Range, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 3(5), 111 of BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), of Irregular Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Money Laundering) Act, 2019. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, aged about 44 years, resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh), submitted a written complaint before the In- charge, Cyber Range Police Station, alleging that he is engaged in share-market trading. During the year 2024, he received calls from several unknown mobile numbers, namely 8570064555, 8424855648, 8395943211 and 9991991448, whereby the callers induced him to invest in share trading by assuring him of high and guaranteed returns. It is alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused persons persuaded the complainant to download and install mobile applications, namely "Money Trade 365" and "SkyTrade", from the Play Store and thereafter directed him to deposit money through QR codes and online bank transfers. Initially, the said applications displayed fictitious profits to gain the complainant's confidence. Believing the representations made by the accused persons, the complainant transferred a total amount of ₹20,15,000/- through various online transactions. Upon realizing that he had been cheated, he lodged the present complaint, on the basis of which the aforesaid crime came to be registered against the accused persons. The present applicant was arrested on 01.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. He submits that the applicant's arrest and detention are ex facie illegal inasmuch as he was arrested on 01.03.2026 but was neither produced before the nearest Magistrate within the mandatory period of 24 hours nor before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Instead, he was illegally taken to Delhi and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Delhi, who declined to grant remand and directed the investigating agency to produce him 3 before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate, whereafter he was produced on 03.03.2026. He further submits that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC and also failed to furnish the written grounds of arrest as mandated under law. He further submits that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out, inasmuch as despite lodging the complaint on 03.03.2025, the complainant voluntarily continued to transfer money thereafter, thereby completely belying the allegation of deception or dishonest inducement. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR, no amount of the alleged cheated money has been credited to his account, there is no financial nexus connecting him with the alleged proceeds of crime, his implication is solely based on the memorandum/disclosure statement of a co-accused, which has no independent evidentiary value in law and the entire prosecution case rests on documentary evidence already in the possession of the investigating agency, therefore, no purpose would be served by his continued detention. He also submits that several similarly situated co- accused persons, namely, Rohan Kandera (MCRC No. 10335/2025), Vishal Yadav (MCRC No. 10457/2025), Chetan (MCRC No. 10048/2025), Sandeep and Saurabh (MCRC No. 10072/2025), have already been granted bail by this Court vide common order dated 05.02.2026 and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the pendency of the present bail application, the applicant had filed I.A. No. 01/2026 seeking grant of ad-interim bail and this Court, vide order dated 02.06.2026, considering the advanced and medically sensitive stage of pregnancy of the applicant's wife, was pleased to grant ad-interim bail to 4 the applicant for a period of six weeks. He submits that during the subsistence of the said ad-interim bail, the applicant's wife delivered a male child and therefore, the humanitarian circumstances, on the basis of which the ad-interim bail was granted and have now been replaced by a fresh medical emergency. It is submitted that the applicant has, therefore, filed I.A. No. 03/2026 seeking extension of the ad-interim bail for a further period of four weeks on the ground that his one-month-old son, Master Ranvik Sikka, is suffering from serious medical complications since birth, including low platelet count, typhoid, persistent fever, respiratory difficulties and Ejection Systolic Murmur (ESM), and is under continuous medical supervision. It is further submitted that the applicant's wife is still recovering from childbirth, is suffering from post- partum complications including urinary tract infection (UTI), and is not in a position to independently take care of the newborn child or undertake repeated hospital visits. It is submitted that the applicant is the only person available to provide physical, emotional and logistical support to his wife and newborn child and has not misused the liberty granted by this Court in any manner. Therefore, it is prayed that the ad-interim bail granted vide order dated 02.06.2026 be extended for a further period of four weeks. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail as well as the application seeking extension of ad- interim bail. He submits that the present applicant is involved in a well- organized cyber fraud involving cheating of innocent investors by inducing them to invest in fictitious share trading platforms on the false promise of assured returns, thereby causing substantial wrongful loss to the complainant. He further submits that the investigation has revealed the active involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged 5 offence and considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, he does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. He further submits that although this Court had granted ad-interim bail to the applicant vide order dated 02.06.2026, primarily on humanitarian grounds, taking into consideration the advanced and medically sensitive stage of pregnancy of the applicant's wife, the said order was purely temporary in nature and cannot be treated as a ground for grant of regular bail or for extension of the ad-interim bail. He further submits that the co-accused persons Parmeshwar Kurre and Akshay Kumar Sonwani have already been denied the benefit of bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4138/2025 and MCRC No. 4154/2025, respectively, vide common order dated 11.07.2025. Likewise, the bail application of co-accused Rajkumar was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5497/2026 vide order dated 23.06.2026 and that of co-accused Ashish Gupta was also rejected in MCRC No. 5147/2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026. Therefore, he submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, and the rejection of bail applications of other co-accused persons, the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail, nor does he deserve extension of the ad-interim bail already granted by this Court and accordingly prays for rejection of both the prayer for regular bail and the application seeking extension of ad- interim bail. 6. In compliance with the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by this Court, the City Superintendent of Police has filed a detailed affidavit. It is stated therein that the present applicant was an active member of an organized cyber fraud syndicate operating the fraudulent online trading platforms, namely, "Moneytrade 365" and "Smarttrade 365", from Dubai. As per the affidavit, the applicant facilitated the operation of the syndicate by 6 arranging accommodation for the co-accused in Dubai, receiving them at the airport, providing logistical support, converting Indian currency into Dirhams through Indian nationals residing in Dubai and delivering the converted cash to the main accused persons, namely, Anshul Ginotra and Garvit Jain, for which he allegedly received a monthly remuneration of about ₹50,000/-. It is further stated that the applicant's involvement is corroborated by his memorandum statement, the memorandum statements of the co-accused, his passport showing his presence in Dubai during the relevant period, WhatsApp chats, digital records, bank account transactions, Emirates ID and other electronic evidence recovered during investigation. The affidavit further states that after the Dubai Police raided the premises from where the syndicate was operating, the applicant returned to India and thereafter continued to assist the main accused in the operation relating to conversion of the proceeds of crime into USDT. It is also stated that the applicant was subsequently arrested on 01.03.2026 after following the due procedure prescribed under law. The deponent has further stated that the charge- sheet has already been filed against the present applicant on 28.05.2026, while investigation against the remaining absconding accused persons is still in progress and a supplementary charge-sheet shall be filed under Section 193(9) of the BNSS. It is also averred that the applicant had earlier been declared absconding in another case by the competent Court at Rohtak and that several complaints relating to the fraudulent platforms "Moneytrade 365" and "Smarttrade 365" have been registered across different parts of the country, wherein the present applicant is alleged to have played an active role. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during the course of investigation, the detailed affidavit filed by the City Superintendent of Police in compliance with the order dated 13.05.2026, wherein the applicant has been alleged to be an active member of the organized cyber fraud syndicate operating the platforms namely "Moneytrade 365" and "Smarttrade 365" from Dubai, the electronic and documentary evidence collected during investigation, the role attributed to the applicant in facilitating the activities of the syndicate, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, while supplementary charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the other absconding accused persons and further considering that the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely Parmeshwar Kurre and Akshay Kumar Sonwani have already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4138/2025 and MCRC No. 4154/2025 vide order dated 11.07.2025, respectively and similarly, the bail applications of co- accused Rajkumar in MCRC No. 5497/2026 vide order dated 23.06.2026 and Ashish Gupta in MCRC No. 5147/2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026 have also been rejected by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that, at this stage, it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the applicant- Sidharth Sikka, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, involved in Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station, Cyber Range, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(4), 3(5), 111 of BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), of Irregular 8 Deposit Schemes (Prohibition of Money Laundering) Act, 2019, stands rejected. 10. From perusal of the record, it transpires that during the pendency of the present bail application, this Court, vide order dated 02.06.2026, granted ad-interim bail to the applicant for a period of six weeks on humanitarian grounds, considering the advanced stage of pregnancy of the applicant's wife. Thereafter, the applicant has filed I.A. No. 03/2026 seeking extension of the ad-interim bail for a further period of four weeks on the ground that his newborn son, Master Ranvik Sikka, aged about one month, is suffering from serious medical complications and is under continuous medical treatment, while the applicant's wife is still recuperating from childbirth and is also undergoing treatment for post- delivery ailments. 11. Considering the medical documents placed on record along with I.A. No. 03/2026, which prima facie indicate that the applicant's newborn son is undergoing continuous medical treatment and requires close medical monitoring, coupled with the fact that the applicant's wife is still recovering from childbirth and is unable to independently manage the treatment and care of the infant and further considering that during the period of ad-interim bail the applicant has not been alleged to have misused the liberty granted to him or violated any of the conditions imposed by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that, purely on humanitarian considerations, one final opportunity deserves to be granted to the applicant. 12. Accordingly, while the present bail application stands rejected, the ad- interim bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 02.06.2026 is extended for a further period of four weeks from the date of expiry of the earlier period of ad-interim bail. The applicant shall positively surrender 9 before the concerned trial Court immediately upon expiry of the aforesaid extended period without seeking any further extension. 13. It is made clear that the applicant shall cooperate during the trial and, during the extended period of ad-interim bail, shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or influence any prosecution witness, shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not involve himself in any criminal activity. The applicant shall also strictly abide by all the terms and conditions contained in the order dated 02.06.2026. The applicant shall positively surrender before the concerned Trial Court immediately upon expiry of the extended period of ad-interim bail, failing which he shall be taken into custody forthwith in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2026 stands disposed of. 15. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court as well as the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal