Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7557 of 2025 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Avadh Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Mavai, Police Station Mavai, District : Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 45/2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 of the BNS. 2. Facts of the case are that on behalf of the Government, Assistant 2 Sub-Inspector Praveen Pradhan of Police Station Kotwali, Raipur, registered First Information Report No. 45/25 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 BNS. The FIR records that on 22.03.2025, in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), vide No. UPA/Range.Cyber.Thana/Rai/03/2025 dated 22.03.2025, and further communicated through the office of Police Station Incharge, Kotwali, Raipur (Letter No. 113 dated 23.03.2025), a reference was made for legal action against mule account holders. The matter was initiated on the basis of Letter No. P.M./Tech.S./Cyber/C.15/01/582/2023 dated 27.10.2023 of the Additional Director General of Police (Tech.S.), Police Headquarters, Raipur, and subsequent reminder letter No. P.M./Tech.S./Cyber/C.15-4 C/304/2024 dated 04.07.2024. 3. It was noted therein that, as per the instructions received from the senior office, information was collected from the Coordination Portal of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for sharing cyber- crime related information for investigative purposes. Upon verification, it was found that several mule bank accounts had been used for disbursing amounts obtained through cyber fraud. 4. A total of 41 bank accounts belonging to Kotak Mahindra Bank, Raipur Branch (IFSC Codes KKBK0006407, KKBK0006402, 3 KKBK0006408) were identified, in which a cumulative amount of ₹ 18,96,851/- was found deposited between 01.01.2024 and 11.01.2025, being proceeds of cyber fraud. The account holders/promoters of these accounts were found to have facilitated the receipt, concealment, and misappropriation of the said fraudulent amounts, despite knowing, or having reason to believe, that the property was dishonestly obtained through fraudulent means. 5. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 17.06.2025 before the competent Court and the applicant along with other co-accused persons were arrested. Hence this bail application. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is a hardworking individual, engaged in earning an honest livelihood for his family, and is well-educated with good social standing, actively participating in society. It is submitted that the applicant has been wrongly arrested on the basis of baseless allegations, as his name does not appear in the FIR and no incriminating material has been seized against him to establish his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant did not hold or operate any of the bank accounts used in the crime, and his implication is solely based on the memorandum statement of the 4 co-accused, which by itself has no evidentiary value. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take much time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the involvement of applicant comes into light on the basis of a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Police Station, Raipur, dated 22.03.2025, the FIR was lodged pursuant to instructions from the Additional Director General of Police (Technology Services), Police Headquarters, Raipur, regarding statutory action against mule account holders. The account holders/promoters used these accounts to utilize the funds obtained through cyber fraud. It was found that the accounts were used to deposit the fraudulently earned amount between 01.01.2024, and 11.01.2025. The investigation revealed that the account holders/promoters knowingly used these accounts to launder money obtained through cyber fraud, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 8. Learned State counsel further argued that bail applications of co- accused Ayush Jethani and Neelam Jethani has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025, bail application of co-accused namely Moh. 5 Naseeruddin has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5794 of 2025, bail application of co-accused namely Nitish Kumar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7151 of 2025 and bail application of co-accused namely Vivek Balendra has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6043 of 2025. As such, bail application of present applicant is also liable rejected. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, it prima facie appears that the applicant is involved in a serious cybercrime offense, on the basis of a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Police Station, Raipur, dated 22.03.2025, the FIR was lodged pursuant to instructions from the Additional Director General of Police (Technology Services), Police Headquarters, Raipur, regarding statutory action against mule account holders, the investigation revealed that 41 bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Raipur, with IFSC codes kkbk0006407, kkbk0006402, and kkbk0006408, were used to deposit Rs.18,96,851 obtained through cyber fraud, the account holders/promoters used these accounts to utilize the funds obtained through cyber fraud and it was found that the accounts 6 were used to deposit the fraudulently earned amount between 01.01.2024, and 11.01.2025, the investigation further revealed that the account holders/promoters knowingly used these accounts to launder money obtained through cyber fraud. Moreover, bail applications of co-accused Ayush Jethani and Neelam Jethani has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5560 of 2025, bail application of co-accused namely Moh. Naseeruddin has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in MCRC No. 5794 of 2025, bail application of co-accused namely Nitish Kumar has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7151 of 2025 and bail application of co- accused namely Vivek Balendra has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6043 of 2025, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail 11. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Rahul Kumar Yadav involved in Crime No. 45/2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 12. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 7 13. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Akhil Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice