1 CGHC010303912026 2026:CGHC:41206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1319 of 2026 1. Gravit Jain S/o Sh. Manoj Jain Aged About 26 Years R/o 146- A, Hari Nagar Ashram, Delhi 110014 ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. - Cyber Police Thana (Range Surguja) Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh Pincode 497001 ... Non-applicant MCRCA No. 1323 of 2026 1. Anshul Ginotra S/o Sh. Dharampal Aged About 33 Years R/o 331/4 Near Old Bus Stand, Krishna Colony, Rohtak Haryana 124001. ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. Cyber Police Thana (Range Surguja), Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. Pincode 497001. ... Non-applicant 2 For Applicants : Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sahiba Singh, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Jha & Mr. Harjas Singh, Advocates For Non-applicant : Mr. Sumeet Singh, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 18/09/2026 1. Since above two anticipatory bail applications arise out of the same crime number, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. 2. These two anticipatory bail applicants are the first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.3/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station (Range Surguja), Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) under Sections 318 (4), 317 (4), 3 (5), 111, 238 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023; Section 66D of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 23 (1), 23B and 23H of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Ravi Mohan Goswami lodged written complaint in concerned police station alleging that applicants and co-accused persons have fraudulently enticed complainant Ravi Mohan Goswami to invest money in share trading on promise of hefty profits; got deposited a total sum of Rs.21,15,000/- from him by getting 3 downloaded/installed online trading platforms namely Money Trade 365 & Skytrade applications and thereby they have defrauded him. Based on aforementioned allegations, the instant crime was registered against the applicants and other accused persons. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in crime in question. Applicants have not been named in FIR and they have been made accused only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused recorded by the police during course of investigation. Initially, the complaint is made by Ravi Mohan Goswami resident of Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) that he was defrauded through online trading platforms i.e. Money Trade 365 and Skytrade in which he has deposited a total sum of Rs.21,15,000/- in 84 installments through QR Code. However, according to his instructions, a sum of Rs.21,15,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant under a settlement, which was already taken note of by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Cri) No.15305/2026 (Avnick Mansukh Bhai Limbani vs State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected matters, decided on 07.09.2026. 5. He further contended that no offence under Section 111 of BNS would be made out against the applicants as there is no 4 specific allegation or material to suggest that applicants are involved in organized crime. Alleged cheated amount has not been credited to the account of any of the applicants herein and there exists no financial nexus between them and alleged proceeds of crime. No specific allegation of inducement, participation, communication or receipt of any cheated amount has been levelled against them. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the applicants which could remotely or otherwise suggests their involvement in commission of crime in question. Applicants are neither owners nor associated with alleged online trading platforms with which complainant has allegedly invested amount. There is no criminal antecedent of similar or whatsoever nature against the applicants, they shall fully cooperate with the investigation and hence they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. He also submits that while granting transit bail, learned Sessions Court at Delhi in its order had observed that applicants attended the police station but no interrogation was done. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and vehemently submits that applicants are the foundational promoters and kingpins of this organized cyber-fraud and money laundering 5 syndicate. Forensic analysis of seized devices and block- chain records revealed that approximately Rs.18,88,23,61,149/- (Rs.1888 Crores), corresponding to 19,84,90,156.8 USDT, laundered through crypto-currency channels within a shortest period. Seized digital devices also show that applicants had commissioned and purchased customized source code for unregistered trading applications, paid developer fees through crypto-currency transfers etc. 8. He submits that the material collected during investigation prima facie reflects involvement of applicants with other co- accused persons in organized/syndicate crime for cheating and defrauding as many as 4109 citizens including complainant of their valuable money by promising them hefty profits in share trading and mere deposit of Rs.21,15,000/-, which is only tip of an iceberg, does not make them entitle for benefit of anticipatory bail. In fact, alleged settlement with the complainant is suggestive of applicants’ command, control and ownership over illicit proceeds and operational mechanism of ‘Money Trade 365’ and ‘Skytrade’ network. 9. He submits that organized crime committed by the applicants along with co-accused persons with a view to dupe the hard earned money of the citizens can be certainly considered as an offence against the society and therefore, there custodial interrogation is necessary. There are sufficient material 6 available which indicates the involvement of present applicant. Further the applicants are residents of Delhi and Haryana respectively and are involved in organized white collar crime and they, if released on bail, may tamper the evidences and influence witnesses from disclosing any fact in the case. Applicants may escape and securing their presence in Court on the basis of bail bonds will be difficult task. In these circumstances, applicant may not be released on bail and therefore, this bail application may be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 11. Perusal of case diary would show that some mobile phones were seized at the instance of co-accused Ram Pukar Sahu resident of village Benipur, Police Station Behra, District Darbhanga (Bihar). Police seized number of mobile phones, some of them are having security lock. Upon verification of cream-coloured Realme mobile phone bearing device name “Narzo 80,” IMEI No.869157081732198 and Serial No. 00751487083D0993, which was found accessible and not locked. Upon checking the contents of gallery of that phone, the photographs and videos relating to applicant Anshul Ginotra were found. Screenshots depicting transactions involving cryptocurrency and USDT were also recovered from the device. It was further found that WhatsApp account was 7 saved with the name “Lion” and was operated through mobile number +44 7346 247636; Telegram account identified as “Mr. Lion” was operated through mobile number +91 88827 35233. It is also forming part of case diary that during course of investigation it revealed that applicant Anshul Ginotra was being referred to by the name “Lion”, while applicant, Garvit Jain was being referred to by name “Prince”, in respect of the activities relating to “MoneyTrade 365/Skytrade 365”. It was further revealed from Tronlink installed in mobile phone and upon opening the same, a crypto wallet address was found and $269,927.529 and 928, 697.357 TRX was appearing available in the wallet. Further, there was an excel file in the whatsapp data by name ‘Ansul’ containing data for the period from 20.11.2025 to 16.01.2026 which reflects that applicants herein and one Sulendar Shah by using Go-payment ID and other resources and with the help of other co-accused persons, have misappropriated, misused and made illegal transactions of total Rs.6,01,90,73,365/- in between 20.11.2025 to 16.01.2026. 12. It is also mentioned in case diary that upon verification of another cream-coloured Realme mobile phone bearing device name “Narzo 80,” IMEI No.869157081731976 and Serial No. 00751487083c0593, it was found accessible, not locked and without SIM. Upon checking the contents of gallery of that 8 phone, the photographs and videos relating to applicant Garvit Jain were found. Screenshots depicting transactions involving cryptocurrency and USDT were also recovered from the device. It was further found that WhatsApp account was saved with the name “sammmy7885” and was operated through mobile number +91 78381 23956; Telegram account identified as “Stephen John” was operated through mobile number +91 73037 94184 with user name ‘@Stephen0786’. Upon going through whatsapp chats, telegram chats revealed chats/audio/video relating to present case and screen shot of crypto/ USTD transfers were also available. Upon opening the TronLink installed in the mobile, three crypto wallet address were found and balance of $525,137.977 and 1,850,222.496 TRX was shown as available in the wallets. Email ID associated with the application was found to be Garvitcrick68@gmail.com and sammmy7885@gmail.com Upon examining the blockchain on cromscam.org in relation to the transactions conducted through these crypto wallet addresses, illegal transactions of approximately 1800 crore rupees was carried out through various crypto wallet addresses for the period from 01.11.2025 to 30.01.2026 was noticed. The proceedings recorded further reveal that some of the seized mobile phones could not be accessed as they were password-protected. 9 13. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, as narrated above, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations and material available in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to applicants and therefore, both the anticipatory bail applications are rejected. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-