1 CGHC010305452026 2026:CGHC:39652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7484 of 2026 * - Priya Singh D/o- Umashankar Singh, Aged About 29 Years R/o- K L C Zone -02 Khursipar Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Supela Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. This the first bail application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested on 16.4.2026 in connection with Crime No.32/2025 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) and 61(2) (a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita., 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, during scrutiny of suspicious bank accounts through the "Samanvaya Portal" developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, it came to the notice of the investigating agency that as many as 105 bank accounts maintained in Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.11 11:36:05 +0530 2 the Federal Bank, Supela Branch, District Durg, were being used as mule accounts for routing the proceeds of cyber frauds committed across different States of the country. On verification of the debit-freeze reports and the transaction details supplied by the bank, it was found that an aggregate amount of ₹1,02,34,307/- had been credited into those accounts through various cyber fraud transactions. On the basis of the said information, the present crime came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. 3. During investigation, the statements of the Branch Manager and other officials of Federal Bank, Supela Branch were recorded. The details of the debit-freeze accounts, KYC documents and transaction particulars were collected. Investigation further revealed that the present applicant and other co-accused were holders of different bank accounts which, according to the prosecution, were knowingly made available for receiving the proceeds of cyber fraud. The applicant and her associates were thereafter arrested and since then she is in judicial custody. Investigation is still in progress. 4. The prosecution alleges that an amount of ₹9,55,272/- was credited through an OnLine transaction into Federal Bank Account No.25030100011087 standing in the name of applicant. According to the investigating agency, the said account formed part of the network of mule accounts used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud. 5. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that merely because an amount was credited into her account, no inference of conscious participation in the alleged cyber fraud can be drawn. She is a young lady earning her livelihood as a daily wager and has no 3 criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the amount was neither utilized by her nor has the prosecution collected any material to demonstrate that she was aware of the source of the money. Learned counsel further submits that the marriage of the applicant has been solemnly fixed for the month of November, 2026 and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that she be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present case does not pertain to an isolated transaction but relates to a well-organized cyber fraud racket wherein as many as 105 mule bank accounts maintained with Federal Bank, Supela Branch were utilized for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud committed against innocent victims residing in different States of the country. It is submitted that during investigation, an aggregate amount of ₹1,02,34,307/- has been found to have been routed through the said accounts. The investigation has further disclosed the active role of the present applicant in facilitating the commission of the offence by making available her bank account for receiving the proceeds of crime. It is argued that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the money trail, the identity of other beneficiaries and the larger conspiracy are yet to be unearthed. Learned State counsel further submits that economic offences of this nature have serious repercussions on society and the financial system and, therefore, deserve a different approach while considering the prayer for bail. It is also pointed out that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the benefit of bail by the coordinate bench of this Court. Hence, it is prayed that this bail application be rejected. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material placed on record. 8. The material collected during investigation prima facie reveals that the present crime pertains to an organized cyber fraud in which a large number of bank accounts were allegedly used as mule accounts for receiving money dishonestly obtained from victims residing in different parts of the country. The investigation further reveals that substantial amounts were credited into the accounts standing in the name of the present applicant and other co-accuased persons and the investigating agency has collected material to connect such transactions with the proceeds of cyber fraud. The investigation is still continuing and the money trail, the role of the beneficiaries and the larger conspiracy are yet to be completely unearthed. 9. The case diary prima facie indicates that an amount of ₹9,55,272/- was credited into the bank account maintained in the name of the applicant. The contention that she neither withdrew nor utilized the amount or that she had no knowledge regarding the transaction constitutes a matter of defence, which can appropriately be examined only during trial after appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the material available in the case diary cannot be ignored merely on the basis of such explanation. 10. The submission advanced on behalf of the applicant that she is merely account holder, that no victim has identified her, that the investigation is documentary in nature or that she has remained in custody for some time, is matter which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the allegations at this stage. The offence alleged is not confined to an individual act of cheating but forms part of a larger organized cyber fraud affecting numerous victims 5 across different States. Economic offences involving cyber fraud are committed with calculated design and have serious repercussions on public confidence in digital banking and financial institutions. Therefore, while considering an application for bail in such matters, the nature of the accusation, the manner of commission of the offence, the magnitude of the fraud and the requirement of a fair and unhindered investigation are relevant considerations. 11. The investigation is admittedly still in progress. The prosecution is in the process of tracing the flow of funds, identifying the beneficiaries and collecting further electronic and documentary evidence. At this stage, this Court cannot rule out the possibility that release of the applicant may adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the individual role attributed to the applicant, the stage of investigation and the fact that similarly situated co-accused, namely- Pradeep Kumar Uike, Dharmendra Singh, Sanni Chouhan and Aarti Markandey, have already been denied the benefit of bail by the coordinate bench of this Court by common order dated 09.07.2026 in MCRC No. 4591/2026 & connected matters, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this first bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti