MOHAMMAD KAMAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010394732026 2026:CGHC:46699
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9502 of 2026
 Mohammad Kamal Son Of Mohammad Akram, Aged About 25
Years Resident Of Paanch Rasta, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As Mohammad
Kalam In The Impugned Order)
--- Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant
WITH
MCRC No. 9625 of 2026
 Geeta Lanjewar W/o Rajkumar Lanjewar Aged About 60 Years
(Wrongly Mentioned As S/o Instead Of W/o In Main Cause Title),
(Age Wrongly Mentioned In Covering Memo Of Impugned Order)
R/o 133, Sangam Chowk, Punjabi Mohalla, Near Bhanjan Pandas
Residence, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh
(Bhilai Wrongly Not Mentioned In Covering Memo Of Impugned
Order) (Near Bhanjan Pandas Residence Wrongly Not Mentioned
In Main Cause-Title Of Impugned Order)
--- Applicant
Versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bhilai
Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As Police
Station Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, In Main Cause Title Of Impugned
Order)
--- Non-applicant

2
For Applicants : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate
(in MCRC/9502/2026)
Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
(in MCRC/9625/2026)
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.11.2026
1. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 388/2026 registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar,
District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections
318(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Police Station Bhilai
Nagar received information from the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India, regarding various bank accounts being used in
cyber fraud which fall under the category of layer-1/mule
accounts. The accounts of the present applicants were also
mentioned in the list provided by the competent authority.
Thereafter, the police registered an offence and arrested the
applicants on 28.07.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the respective applicants jointly submit that
though the bank accounts of the applicants were used for a fraud

3
of Rs. 37,900/- and Rs. 63,850/-, they had no knowledge that
their bank accounts were being used by the fraudsters, and the
applicants are ready to deposit the said amount. They further
submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the
applicants have been in judicial custody since 28.07.2026, and
the trial is likely to take considerable time; therefore, they pray for
the grant of regular bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
applications and submits that the applicants had provided their
bank accounts to the fraudsters on a commission of Rs. 4,200/-
and thus, they were actively involved in the cyber fraud;
therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the
applicants, and the fact that applicants have no criminal
antecedents; further considering that the charge-sheet has
already been filed before the competent court, the applicants
have been in judicial custody since 28.07.2026, and conclusion of
the trial is likely to take time, this Court is of the view that the
applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
7. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a

4
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
(a) they shall make themselves available for
interrogation by the police officer as and when
required;
(b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the
Court; and
(c) they shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.
The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of
deciding these bail applications only, the learned trial Court shall
decide the case on its own merits.
- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a