1 2026:CGHC:18992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2549 of 2026 Munna Lal Nag Son Of Melaram Nag Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Pondum, P.S. And Tahsil Chhindgarh District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station Sukma, District Sukma (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(2), 61(2)(A) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the applicant/accused, Munna Lal Nag, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2025 registered at Police Station Sukma for offences punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(2), and 61(2)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is alleged that the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.27 17:21:21 +0530 2 applicant opened a bank account in his name at Axis Bank, Sukma branch, and the said account was used as a “mule account” for routing proceeds of cyber fraud. During investigation, the bank statement of the applicant’s account was seized, which revealed that a total amount of Rs.27,46,001/- was deposited between 17.05.2024 and 31.12.2024, and Rs.3,36,589/- was deposited between 01.01.2025 and 31.03.2025, aggregating to Rs.30,82,590/-. The applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the said amount. It is further alleged that the account was used to collect fraudulent amount from multiple victims, thereby facilitating cyber fraud and cheating numerous persons. Considering the serious nature of the offence and its connection with organized cyber fraud activities, the investigation is still ongoing. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submit that the FIR in the present case was registered on 25.11.2025 in respect of an alleged incident dated 01.01.2024, reflecting an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. Such a prolonged delay casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. The applicant has not been involved in any criminal activity and has been falsely implicated. She also submits that the allegations against the applicant are wholly false and fabricated. The applicant neither committed any fraud nor transferred any amount in connection with the alleged offence. He is a small auto-vehicle businessman and had no knowledge regarding the alleged misuse of his Aadhaar card, bank passbook, or any suspicious transactions. No material has been placed to show his involvement in the alleged crime. She later submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any credible documentary or 3 substantive evidence to establish that the applicant received or misappropriated any amount. There is no evidence linking him to the alleged offence of cheating or fraud. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and has been wrongly arrested on the basis of baseless and unsubstantiated allegations. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 02.04.2026, the Investigation Officer, District – Sukuma has filed his affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation, stating that the applicant was actively involved in a systematic cyber fraud operation and acted as a key conduit for routing the defrauded amounts through his bank account. The affidavit reflects that substantial suspicious transactions, seizure of financial records, the mobile phone and SIM used in the offence, and corroborative documentary evidence from the Grahak Seva Kendra clearly establish the involvement of the applicant. It is further stated that the applicant, in his memorandum statement, admitted to providing his bank account and KYC documents to an organized syndicate in exchange for monetary consideration. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, considering the serious nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the applicant is alleged to have facilitated a systematic cyber fraud by allowing his bank account to be used as a mule account, and the substantial amount involved, this Court finds that there is prima facie material available against the applicant. The case diary, along with the 4 affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, clearly reflects the involvement of the applicant through oral, documentary, and electronic evidence, including bank records, seized articles, and his own memorandum statement. The role attributed to the applicant indicates active participation in an organized syndicate engaged in defrauding multiple innocent persons. Furthermore, the investigation against other co- accused persons is still ongoing, and releasing the applicant at this stage may adversely affect the investigation and there is also a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Therefore, considering the overall facts, circumstances, and material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Munna Lal Nag, involved in Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station Sukma, District Sukma (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(4), 318(2), 61(2)(A) of BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek