1 2026:CGHC:11694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1968 of 2026 Gourav Rout S/o Gagan Bihari Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Jaysingada, P.O. - Bandhadiha, District - Jajpur, Odisha. ...Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 322/2025, registered at Police Station : Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2),317(4), 317(5),318(4),111(2), 111(2)(b) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 66 D of the Information Technology Act 2005. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 11:27:10 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that an application dated 04.04.2025 was received from the Cyber Cell of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, addressed to Sub-Inspector Gulab Tandan of Police Station Kondagaon, stating that a complaint had been lodged on the cyber portal against Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kamleshwar Nag, the account holders of Account No. 5660383552 of Central Bank of India. Upon reviewing the bank transactions, it was found that a huge amount of Rs. 72,09,424/- had been transacted during the period from 01.01.2024 to 08.03.2025. On the basis of the said information, Police Station Kondagaon registered FIR bearing Crime No. 322/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(5) and 3(5) of the BNS against Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kamleshwar Nag. During investigation, the police recorded the statements and memorandum of the said accused persons, wherein the present applicant was implicated as a co-accused. Thereafter, the police conducted further investigation and ultimately filed the challan/charge-sheet before the learned Court below for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against the present applicant along with other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is not involved in any alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is an innocent person and has been roped into the alleged offence due to enmity. He has not committed any offence under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and therefore the said provisions are not attracted in the present 3 case. In fact, the FIR has been registered against Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kamleshwar Nag, who are the account holders and main accused in the case. The bank account through which the alleged transactions were made was not created by the present applicant and no material has been brought on record to establish any link between the applicant and the alleged transactions. The passbook, internet banking password and cheque book of the account are confidential and remain within the knowledge and control of the account holders themselves; therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the transactions made through another person’s account. It is further submitted that the learned lower court has not properly appreciated these facts while rejecting the bail application. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and the entire prosecution case against him is false and concocted. No incriminating material such as passbook, ATM card or cheque book related to the said account has been seized from the possession of the applicant except his mobile phone, nor has any money been recovered from him. The name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR and he has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused without any direct evidence. The applicant is the sole bread earner of his family and his family is completely dependent upon him for their livelihood. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application 4 and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that FIR bearing Crime No. 322/2025, registered at Police Station : Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2),317(4), 317(5),318(4),111(2), 111(2) (b) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 66 D of the Information Technology Act 2005. During investigation, it was found that the bank account of Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kameshwar Nag in Central Bank of India, Kondagaon Branch was used for cyber fraud transactions and about 41 online complaints from different cities of the country have been received against the said account. The account holders disclosed that the present applicants induced them to open the account on the pretext of providing work and thereafter took control of the passbook, ATM card and internet banking details. During investigation, various passbooks, ATM cards, mobile phones and SIM cards were seized from the possession of the applicants. It was further revealed that an amount of about Rs. 9.77 crores was credited and about Rs. 9.75 crores was withdrawn from the said accounts within a short period. Considering the serious nature of the offence and the possibility that the applicants may abscond or influence the evidence if released on bail, learned State Counsel prayed for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and upon perusal of the affidavit filed by the concerned Superintendent of Police, it appears that during investigation it was revealed that the accused Lokeshwar Hirwani and 5 Kameshwar Nag were operating Bank Account No. 566038352 in the Central Bank of India, Kondagaon Branch through which an amount of Rs. 72,09,424/- was transacted and obtained through cyber fraud and as many as 41 online cyber fraud complaints have been received from different cities across the country in connection with the said account. The investigation further reveals that the present applicant Ravikant Sahu had induced the account holders to open the joint bank account on the pretext of providing employment and thereafter obtained the passbook, internet banking password and cheque book, thereby gaining control over the account and facilitating fraudulent transactions. It has also been revealed that during the period from 01.01.2024 to 08.03.2025 a total amount of Rs. 9,77,14,814/- was credited and Rs. 9,75,91,522/- was debited from the said bank accounts and during investigation various bank passbooks, ATM cards, mobile phones and SIM cards were seized from the possession of the applicant. Considering the serious nature and gravity of the allegations, the huge amount involved and the possibility that if the applicant is released on bail he may abscond, influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and may again indulge in similar activities, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accused/applicant is rejected. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Gourav Rout involved in Crime No. 322/2025, registered at Police Station : Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2),317(4), 317(5),318(4),111(2), 111(2)(b) & 3(5) 6 of BNS and Section 66 D of the Information Technology Act 2005, 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 vaibhav