1 CGHC010319152026 2026:CGHC:39813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7583 of 2026 1. Irfan Ansari S/o Mukhtaar Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Behrapahari, Police Station - Margonda, Tahsil- Devghar, District- Devghar (Jharkhand) 2. Muftiyaaj Ansari S/o Mukhtar Ansari Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Behrapahari, Police Station - Margonda, Tahsil- Devghar, District- Devghar (Jharkhand) ... Applicants versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tumgaon (Cyber Cell Mahasamund), District- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09.2026 1. The Applicants have preferred this 1st Bail Application 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.04/2026 registered at Police Station Cyber Cell Police, Thana Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.11 14:07:05 +0530 2 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 Thereafter, on 04.01.2026, an amount of Rs.2,49,988/- was fraudulently withdrawn from his SBI account through multiple online transactions.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 Applicants. Accordingly, the present crime was registered against them. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no amount has been recovered from the possession or bank account of the Applicants and there is no material to connect them with the alleged online fraud except the 3 digital evidence collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the Applicants have 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 Applicants are 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, they 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 Applicants. 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 Applicants, the period of custody of the Applicants 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 merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Furthermore, the other co-accused person, namely, Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.07.2026 in MCRC/4166/2026. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let the applicants – Irfan Ansari and Muftiyaaj Ansari involved 4 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 them furnishing a personal bond with two 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 he 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 his, 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 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 him in accordance with law. 5 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a