1 CGHC010228582026 2026:CGHC:32653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.5389 of 2026 Bhagad Akram S/o Bhagad Daudbhai Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Morkanda Roshanshapir Dargah, Suncity 2 Shyam Viked Bedeshwar, P.S. A-Division Jamnagar, District - Jamnagar Gujrat --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant M.Cr.C No.5850 of 2026 Ajay Kumar Mahto S/o Satyanarayan Mahto Aged About 38 Years By Caste- Kurmi, R/o- Jogani Ganga, Police Station Sakra Bariyapur, Mujaffarnagar (Bihar) (As Detail Of Applicant Not Properly Mentioned In Order Impugned Therefore Detail Of Applicant As Per Final Report In Crime No.29/2025) --- Applicant Versus SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.30 11:14:20 +0530 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant M.Cr.C No.6321 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Babu Lal Singh Aged About 51 Years Caste Rajput R/o Vill. Post Thana Distt. Koderma (Jharkhand) --- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Bacheli Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For respective Applicants :Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Mr. MK Beg and Mr. Vikash A Shrivastava, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. The Applicants have preferred these 1st Bail Applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.29/2025 registered at Police Station Bacheli, District South-Bastar, Dentewada (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 111(1)(3) of BNS as also under Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Complainant 3 Ramesh Aila, received a link on his WhatsApp number from an unknown source, which, upon being opened, redirected him to a platform styled as "LOOK-TOP Team (Alicia)". The Complainant was induced to invest Rs.2,250/- with the assurance that he would receive Rs.2,250/- every month for a period of two years. After making the initial payment through a QR code, the said amount was credited back to his account, whereafter, on the pretext of upgrading his account and availing various lucrative offers, he was induced to transfer a total sum of Rs.7,91,547/- into different bank accounts and through various links. However, when the Complainant attempted to withdraw the amount, no amount could be withdrawn and upon receiving no response from the persons operating the WhatsApp group, he realized that he had been cheated and lodged the present complaint. During the course of investigation, two co-accused persons namely Sunil Kumar and Yuvraj Bakal, were arrested and charge- sheeted. Thereafter, in the course of further investigation, the present Applicants were arrested from the States of Gujarat, Bihar and Jharkhand respectively and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against them. The investigation further revealed that the amounts transferred by the Complainant and other victims to the suspected bank 4 accounts were subsequently transferred to the bank accounts of the present Applicants, thereby prima facie indicating their involvement as members of an organized cyber fraud syndicate engaged in committing economic offences. Hence these applications. 3. Learned Counsel for the respective Applicants submit that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the Applicant Bhagad Akram has been in judicial custody since 11.02.2026, the Applicant, Ajay Kumar Mahto has been in judicial custody since 17.03.2026 and the Applicant Mukesh Kumar Singh has been in judicial custody since 19.03.2026. It is further submitted that co-accused Yuvraj Bakal @ Yuvraj Singh and Sunil Kumar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in their respective M.Cr.C. Nos.8268/2025 and 8201/2025. It is submitted that the Applicants are similarly situated to the aforesaid co- accused and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the present Applicants may also be granted regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the applications and submits that there is sufficient material available in the case diary to prima facie establish the involvement of the 5 Applicants in the alleged offence. Inviting the attention of this Court to paras (c) to (g) of the affidavits filed by the respective Investigating Officers, it is submitted that during the course of investigation, on the basis of documentary and electronic evidence, it was found that the Complainant had been defrauded of Rs.1,19,950/- and several other victims had collectively been cheated of an amount of Rs.7,91,547/- through the online investment fraud. It is submitted that upon examination of the documentary evidence, the involvement of the Applicants, along with the other co-accused persons, came to light. It is further submitted that Applicant Bhagad Akram, in his memorandum statement, admitted that at the instance of his friend Asgar Patel, he had opened a Karnataka Bank account through which the defrauded amount was routed, that the ATM card, passbook and cheque book remained with the said co-accused, that both of them shared the proceeds of the cyber fraud and that he had spent the amount received therefrom. It is further submitted that Applicant Ajay Kumar Mahto, who was working in Havens Wellness Private Limited, was operating the company's Indian Overseas Bank account used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud, had access to the ID and password of the said account, withdrew the defrauded 6 amount through the company's cheque book, which has been seized from his possession and admitted the same in his memorandum statement. It is also submitted that Applicant Mukesh Kumar Singh, in his memorandum statement, admitted that he had provided his IDBI Bank account, along with bank account kits of other persons, to co- accused Arun Das for use in cyber fraud, remained in contact with him through WhatsApp and received Rs.1,000/- per transaction for facilitating the routing of the defrauded amount. It is further submitted that the role attributed to the Applicants clearly discloses their active participation in an organized cyber fraud syndicate. He further submits that co- accused Yuvraj Bakal @ Yuvraj Singh and Sunil Kumar, who have been granted bail by this Court, stand on a different footing. It is submitted that both of them are residents of Rajasthan and upon verification, no criminal antecedents were found against them. On the other hand, though no criminal antecedents have been found against Applicants Bhagad Akram and Ajay Kumar Mahto, Applicant Mukesh Kumar Singh has been found to have one criminal case registered against him in the State of Jharkhand, as reflected in the ICJS portal, therefore, considering the active role attributed to the Applicants in the commission of the alleged 7 organized cyber fraud, they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations and though the State has opposed the applications by placing reliance upon the respective affidavits of the Investigating Officers and the memorandum statements of the Applicants, but considering the fact that co- accused Yuvraj Bakal @ Yuvraj Singh and Sunil Kumar have already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court, the period of custody of the Applicants since 11.02.2026, 17.03.2026 and 19.03.2026, respectively and considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that these are fit cases to allow the applications. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. 6. Let Applicants-Bhagad Akram, Ajay Kumar Mahto and Mukesh Kumar Singh involved in Crime No.29/2025 registered at Police Station Bacheli, District South-Bastar, Dentewada (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 111(1)(3) of BNS as also under Section 66(D) of IT Act be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with 8 two local sureties each 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 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. 9 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