1 2026:CGHC:20552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2958 of 2026 Narbadeshankar Sahu S/o Parasram Sahu Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Telaimuda, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Mita Tandia, Advocate along with Ms. Sandhya Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. Gen. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 358/2025, registered at Police Station Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the applicant holds a bank account bearing No. 6055879230 in the Bank of Maharashtra, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Baikunthpur Branch. Upon obtaining and examining the transaction details of the said account, it was found that amounts were received from different states. As per the record, the applicant is alleged to have provided his bank account to certain offenders/group for the purpose of earning illegal money through online fraudulent activities. The applicant has not disputed that the said bank account belongs to him. Further, as per complaint acknowledgment numbers 23109240115598, 31101250018279, and 33709240048623, an amount of ₹30,000/- was credited to his account on 16.02.2024 in connection with cyber fraud. Accordingly, it is alleged that the applicant knowingly made his bank account available for committing serious online fraud offences. The crime appears to have been carried out through cyber means in an organized manner, having widespread impact. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya has registered a case against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of bank transactions, without any direct evidence to establish that he himself committed the alleged cyber fraud or cheated the complainant. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no material on record showing the applicant’s active involvement in any act of online cheating or cyber fraud and the only allegation against him is that certain amounts were credited into his bank account, which by 3 itself does not establish his complicity in the offence in absence of any evidence indicating his participation or knowledge. It is also contended that the applicant is neither the beneficiary nor the mastermind of the alleged fraud and no material has been produced to demonstrate that he had knowledge of the alleged fraudulent transactions and further submission is that the entire case is based on documentary evidence such as bank transactions, which are already in the custody of the investigating agency and therefore no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also submitted that the amount allegedly credited in the applicant’s account is minimal and the same has already been frozen, thus there is no possibility of tampering with evidence, moreover, the applicant has no direct role in the alleged transactions, no amount has been transferred by him and further no recovery has been effected from him and no evidence directly connects him to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the memorandum of co- accused alleging that the accounts were opened on the applicant’s instructions is uncorroborated and does not constitute substantive evidence. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in custody since 27.11.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case pertains to organized cyber fraud wherein the bank account of the applicant 4 was used as a mule account for illegal financial transactions. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 02.04.2026, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit disclosing the evidence collected during the course of investigation, wherein it is revealed that three complaints were lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal (1930) by complainants namely Jitendra Singh (Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh), Sandeep Soni (Gujarat) and Manoj Panda (Telangana) vide acknowledgment numbers 23109240115598, 31101250018279 and 33709240048623 respectively, and it was found that amounts of ₹38,600/-, ₹30,000/- and ₹23,632/- respectively (total ₹92,232/-) were credited into the bank account of the present applicant through cyber fraud. It is further submitted that during investigation it has been revealed that from the date of opening of the said bank account i.e. 04.09.2024, a total credit of ₹4,56,364/- and debit of ₹5,56,352.64/- has taken place, indicating that the account was actively used for commission of cyber fraud and illegal transactions. It is also contended that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, was instrumental in operating the said account and thereby deceived innocent persons and misappropriated their money further, during interrogation, the applicant himself admitted that he had opened the bank account along with his friend Yogendra Sahu and had handed over the ATM card and passbook to him in lieu of ₹2,000/-, which clearly establishes his conscious involvement in facilitating the offence, therefore, considering the serious nature of allegations and material collected during 5 investigation, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, the material available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as well as the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer in compliance with order dated 02.04.2026 disclosing the evidence collected during investigation, wherein it has been indicated that certain amounts were credited in the bank account of the applicant in connection with cyber fraud and that the said account was used for multiple transactions, however, also considering the fact that the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to providing his bank account allegedly in lieu of ₹2,000/- to a co-accused person and there is no material on record to show that the applicant is the mastermind or direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud or that he himself actively participated in the commission of the offence, further taking into account that the entire case is primarily based on documentary evidence which is already in the custody of the prosecution and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 27.11.2025 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 6 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Narbadeshankar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 358/2025, registered at Police Station Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 111, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya 7 Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal