P. Jay Urf Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1624 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

P. Jay Urf Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                               1




                                                                                     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 SONI RAJSHEKHAR SONI Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence

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 such, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and

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 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, and

though some 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, but out of them only a meagre amount

Rs. 2,000/- was said to be deposited in the account of one namely

Suraj Kumar, and so far as co-accused Nitish Kumar @ D.N. is

concerned, no such amount was deposited in his account, and it is

apperant that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case

of the said co-accused persons, furthermore, looking to the gravity and

seriousness of the matter as it appears to be an organized cyber crime,

thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the

applicant on regular bail.

8. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant - P. Jay Urf

Sonu, involved in Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station -

Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

Sections 318(4), 61(2)(a) and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this

stage.

9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to

proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously.

10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court

concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rajshekhar