1 2026:CGHC:19043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 514 of 2026 Dipesh Singh Armo S/o Late Babu Sadan Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (CG) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District- Surajpur (CG) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Mahima Tandan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 24/04/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 321/2025, registered at Police Station Surajpur, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.04.27 15:33:57 +0530 2 Dist- Surajpur (C.G) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 413, 420 of I.P.C. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant had allured Vinit Kumar Singh, Dhirendra Prasad Gupta, Pawan Gupta, Bhikham Rajwade, Hamid Ahmad, and availed their Bank Passbook, ATM, Sim card to the cyber fraud and transaction of Rs.5,85,854/- has been done in the said accounts. The police registered F.I.R on 04.07.2025, against the applicant under section 120(B), 413, 420 of I.P.C. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery of any amount has been made from the bank account of the applicant. It is argued that mere transactions through bank accounts or ATMs do not connect the applicant with the offence. It is also pointed out that other account holders involved in the transactions have not been arrested. She would submit that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court, applicant is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title and there is no chance of his absconding, therefore she prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. She would submit that so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, which has 3 been mentioned in para 6.5 of the bail application, the applicant himself has stated about his six criminal antecedents, in which, he is involved, all the cases are of cyber fraud, therefore he is not entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, considering the fact that the applicant is involved in six criminal antecedents and all the cases are of similar nature i.e. of cyber fraud, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and also considering the fact that investigation is still going on, therefore I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Dipesh Singh Armo, involved in Crime No. 321/2025, registered at Police Station Surajpur, Dist- Surajpur (C.G) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 413, 420 of I.P.C. is rejected. Sd/-Sd S S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri