2026:CGHC:16896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3334 of 2026 P. Jay Urf Sonu S/o P. Jogarao Aged About 31 Years R/o Steel Nagar, Ward No. 29, Near Ram Mandir, Camp 01, Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.)

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocates.

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order On Board

13.04.2026

1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Digitally RAJSHEKHAR signed by Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence SONI RAJSHEKHAR SONI punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 in MCRC No.6240/2025, on merits.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one V. Mohan, who is the friend of the present applicant, had opened an account in Canara Bank, Vaishali Nagar branch, bearing account No. 110125175655, upon the present applicant telling him that he would get Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), from one Kunal Soni and one Kunal Pattnaik, if he allowed them to operate his account. After the opening of the account, V. Mohan gave the kit obtained from the bank to the present applicant, who gave it in turn to the main accused persons Kunal Soni and Kunal Pattnaik, and got Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only), in return. The present applicant neither had his account mentioned in the F.I.R., nor was he operating the account. The memorandum statement of V. Mohan mentions that he introduced him to the main accused persons, except that there is no role attributed to the present applicant, and moreover, no discovery was made on the basis of the said memorandum statement, hence it is inadmissible as such. An F.I.R. was registered by the branch manager of Canara Bank on 19.04.2025, stating that he had come to know that 111 accounts from his branch had received money from fraudulent transactions and also no debit memo was attached to them, and a charge-sheet was filed on

18.07.2025. Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that only on the basis of the memorandum statement of one V. Mohan whose account found to be mentioned in the FIR that the applicant has been roped in, stating that it was he who introduced V. Mohan to the main accused persons. However, there is no discovery made in pursuance of that memorandum statement which makes it inadmissible. It is submitted that the co-accused persons are granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.10058/2025 and 1106/2026. The applicant is in jail since

02.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time.

Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case-diary it transpires that the applicant is involved in a serious cyber crime offence, in the present case total 13 accused person are involved and a total transaction of Rs. 1,12,58,419.70/- has taken place from the account of the applicant, the investigation revealed that the bank account of the accused/applicant demonstrate suspicious transaction activity, suggestive of his involvement in the organized cyber crime, and the bail application of the co-accused has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 6335/2025, and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court. As s