1 CGHC010242022026 2026:CGHC:31505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5796 of 2026 Dhananjay Aburao Salve, S/o- Aburao Salve, Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Sound System (D J) Business, Resident Of A-905, Panama Park Society, Power Road, Nimbalkar Nagar, Lohagaon, Near Swapna Sankul Society, Police Station Lohagaon, District- Pune (Maharashtra). ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Cyber Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Diwesh Kumar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Adv. General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1 This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 557/2025 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.), presently being investigated by Cyber Range, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2 As per the prosecution case, the complainant, namely Kamakshya KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Prasad Rath, lodged a written complaint alleging that he was added to a WhatsApp group namely "18 The Winning Trade" through mobile number 9007422845, where he was induced to invest money in online share trading by promising huge profits. Believing the representations made by the persons operating the said group, the complainant transferred an aggregate amount of Rs.1,97,81,892/- through different bank accounts on various dates between 11.08.2025 and 19.09.2025, but neither any trading profit was received nor was the invested amount returned, thereby causing wrongful loss to him. Accordingly, the present crime was registered at Police Station Seepat and considering the gravity of the offence, further investigation was entrusted to Cyber Range, Bilaspur. During investigation, it surfaced that the present applicant, in connivance with the co-accused persons, facilitated opening and operation of bank accounts used for routing the cheated amount and remained in continuous telephonic contact with the co-accused persons. It has also been alleged that the applicant, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he had opened bank accounts in lieu of commission, received Rs.2,09,000/- as commission from co-accused Mitesh Chandrakant Chutke, and further withdrew and handed over Rs.8,00,000/- from the account to the said co-accused. The charge-sheet further discloses that complaints relating to cyber fraud through the applicant's IndusInd Bank Account No. 258956451572 have also been registered in different States through the JMIS Portal. Accordingly, aforesaid offences were registered against the applicant. 3 3 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is carrying on the business of sound systems under the name and style of "Salve Sound Services" at Pune and in the year 2025, co-accused Siddharth Chaure proposed a business partnership, pursuant to which Dhansiddh Private Limited was incorporated. It is further submitted that Siddharth Chaure introduced the applicant to co-accused Mitesh Chutke, who represented himself to be a bank official and facilitated opening of a current account in the name of the company. Learned counsel submits that the applicant merely furnished documents required for opening the account and had no role whatsoever in its operation or financial transactions. It is further submitted that the linked mobile number, internet banking credentials, cheque book, ATM card and operational control of the account always remained with co-accused Siddharth Chaure and Mitesh Chutke and that all such banking instruments and SIM cards were, in fact, recovered from the possession of co-accused Mitesh Chutke during investigation, thereby demonstrating that the account was being operated by the co-accused without the applicant's knowledge or consent. It is further submitted that no incriminating article, electronic device, ATM card, cheque book, cash or any other material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there is no direct evidence to establish that he ever induced the complainant, managed the WhatsApp group or personally received any part of the cheated amount. Learned counsel further submits 4 that the implication of the applicant is principally based upon the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which are matters of evidence to be tested during trial. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 16.02.2026, the investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required and the trial involving voluminous documentary and electronic evidence is likely to consume considerable time. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature involving an organised cyber fraud whereby the complainant has been cheated of an amount of Rs.1,97,81,892/-. It is submitted that during investigation, sufficient material has been collected showing the active involvement of the applicant in opening and operating bank accounts used for routing the proceeds of crime. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicant remained in continuous contact with the co-accused persons through voice calls and in his memorandum statement, admitted that he had opened bank accounts for facilitating online transactions in lieu of commission. It is further submitted that the applicant received commission from co-accused Mitesh Chutke and also withdrew substantial amounts from the bank account for handing over the same to the co-accused. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet also reveals that complaints of similar cyber 5 fraud have been registered through the applicant's bank account in different States and therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected during investigation, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5 In compliance with the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by this Court, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation against the present applicant. The Investigating Officer has stated that the memorandum statement of the applicant was recorded on 16.02.2026, wherein he disclosed that he was associated with the co-accused persons in persuading individuals to invest money in online share trading schemes by assuring that the invested amount would be doubled. It has further been disclosed that for facilitating such transactions, the applicant actively assisted in opening bank accounts in the name of Dhansiddh Private Limited, including IndusInd Bank Account No.258956451572, which was linked with the applicant's mobile number 8956451572, and that he received commission for permitting the use of the said account. It is further stated that amounts of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/-, another Rs.8,00,000/- and several other transactions were routed through the said account and the applicant allegedly received commission therefrom. The Investigating Officer has further stated that, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the applicant, two mobile handsets and four SIM cards connected with different bank accounts were recovered. It has also been disclosed that on 04.09.2025, an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was credited into the 6 applicant's bank account. The affidavit further reveals that apart from the present case, Crime No.748/2025 registered at Police Station Sendhwa, District Badwani (M.P.) under Section 318 of the BNS, besides two similar complaints pending before Nagpur City Cyber Police, Maharashtra and Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, have also surfaced against the applicant. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary, the charge-sheet and the material available on record. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the applicant and the allegation that the complainant was induced to invest an amount of Rs.1,97,81,892/- through a fraudulent online share trading scheme, the material collected during investigation showing the applicant's continuous contact with the co-accused persons, the memorandum statement of the applicant disclosing his role in opening and facilitating operation of bank accounts for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud in lieu of commission, the recovery of mobile phones and SIM cards pursuant to his memorandum statement, the documentary evidence indicating transfer of substantial amounts including Rs.22,00,000/- through the bank account linked with the applicant, the allegation that the applicant received commission for facilitating such transactions, coupled with the fact that similar complaints have also surfaced against the applicant in other States, this Court is of the opinion that a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The defence 7 sought to be raised by the applicant that the bank account was exclusively operated by the co-accused persons and that he had no knowledge of the transactions are matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of consideration of bail. This Court also finds that the role attributed to the present applicant is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Mitesh Chandrakant Chutke and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, till date charges have not been framed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8 Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Dhananjay Aburao Salve, involved in Crime No. 557/2025 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.), presently being investigated by Cyber Range, Bilaspur, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is rejected. 9 Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10 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 Kunal