Hitesh Nath Gosai v. State of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 19-06-2026

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.135/2026 registered at Police Station Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318(4), 317(2), 317(4) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’) and Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, complainant Yashwant Singh Shyam, In-Charge, Cyber Cell Kanker lodged a report of 15-04-2026 that the 2 Cyber Cell Kanker received a complaint reference No.31310240058568 forwarded by the police headquarters, Raipur on 09-05-2025 regarding misuse of mule bank accounts for fraudulent transactions. On being investigation it was found that the co-accused accused Lokesh Tiwari along with bank employees Hitesh Nath Gosai, Manoj Kumar Sahu, Surya Swarnakar, Prakash Singh and Pulkit Chandrakar conspired together and induced one Tikesh Kumar Jain by offering monetary gain to open a bank account in his name and then he opened his bank account No.60487708012 at Bank of Maharashtra and bank account No.9449565736 at Kotak Mahindra Bank and linked his mobile number to these bank accounts. Thereafter, Lokesh Tiwari opened a bank account in his own name with Kenra Bank Kanker Branch having its account No.120000360192 and through these bank accounts made transaction of Rs.2,35,07,010/-. It is alleged that Lokesh Tiwari gave Rs.20,000/- to applicant Hitesh Nath Gosai who transferred the same to applicant Manoj Kumar Sahu who was an employee at Health Insurance Company and then present applicants sent the bank account of Tikesh Kumar Jain and Lokesh Tiwari to another co- accused Surya Swarnkar through the passenger bus. The co-accused Surya Swarnkar in turn sent the said bank accounts to Prakash Singh and Pulkit Chandrakar and thus, considering their syndicate and commission of the alleged offence the FIR has been registered in which the applicants are apprehending their arrest.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are permanent employees of HDFC Bank, Branch Gulli Chowk, Kanker, having clean antecedents and no previous criminal history. It is contended that they have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the alleged statements of co-accused persons, without there being any independent documentary, electronic, or financial evidence connecting them with the alleged offence. The accounts through which the disputed transactions were 3 carried out belong to the co-accused persons, and there is no allegation or material to show that the applicants opened, operated, controlled, or derived any benefit from those accounts. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to place on record any bank statement, transaction trail, or other evidence demonstrating receipt of any amount by the applicants. The applicants are permanent residents, have deep roots in society, are gainfully employed, and have always been willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence. It is further argued that the alleged incident pertains to the period 2024-2025, whereas the complaint was lodged on

09.05.2025 and the FIR came to be registered thereafter, reflecting an unexplained delay which casts doubt on the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate the absence of direct evidence, the applicants’ clean antecedents, stable employment, and readiness to cooperate with the investigation. It is also contended that arrest of the applicants would result in serious prejudice to their service career, livelihood, and family responsibilities, despite the fact that custodial interrogation is not warranted. Reliance is placed upon the principles governing grant of bail and protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, including the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizing that deprivation of liberty should not be resorted to when the presence of the accused can be secured through appropriate conditions. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the ball application and submits that the applicants are named accused in a serious economic offence involving large-scale cyber fraud and money laundering of substantial amounts. It is contended that the investigation has revealed the involvement of the applicants in facilitating and coordinating the illegal transactions 4 carried out through various bank accounts opened and operated by the co- accused persons. The prosecution case is supported not only by the statements of co-accused persons but also by material collected during investigation, which prima facie indicates the applicants' active participation in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that economic offences constitute a distinct class of offences affecting the financial system and public confidence and, therefore, are required to be viewed seriously while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to ascertain the complete modus operandi, identify other beneficiaries, trace the flow of funds, recover relevant electronic devices and documents, and uncover the larger conspiracy behind the offence. It is argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may adversely affect the investigation, as there is a likelihood of the applicants influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or obstructing the collection of crucial material. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial loss caused, the prima facie material collected during investigation, and the requirement of effective custodial interrogation, it is prayed that the present application for anticipatory bail be rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the material collected during the investigation including the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons and other circumstances emerging from the case diary prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the magnitude of alleged financial fraud and also the fact that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicants may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation. The allegation against the applicants pertains to a

6. 5 serious economic offence involving cyber fraud and fraudulent financial transactions of a substantial amount. The submissions regarding the applicants clean antecedents, permanent residents and employment status and also willingness to cooperate with investigation by themselves, do not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the requirements of the ongoing investigation. Economic offences involving organized financial fraud have far reaching consequences on public confidence and the financial system are required to be viewed with due seriousness. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application of applicants Hitesh Nath Gosai and Manoj Kumar Sahu is hereby rejected. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge