Chattisgarh High Court
Vicky Kumar @ Anurag (Rocky) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010206542026 2026:CGHC:30233
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.07.20
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
14:30:36
+0530
MCRC No. 4920 of 2026
1 - Vicky Kumar @ Anurag (Rocky) S/o Shri Ramakant Singh Aged
About 21 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Gram Asnii, Thana -
Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur, Arrah (Bihar)
2 - Ramdeep Kumar @ Shibu S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Aged About
31 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Gram Asnii, Thana -
Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur, Arrah (Bihar)
3 - Nitin Ginotra S/o Shri Shamji Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Ranchi
Jharkhand, Harimati Apartment, Flat No. A-1, Barghmaan Compound,
Lalpur-RanchiJharkhand ... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Cyber
Range Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Nikhil Mehata and Mr. Harsh Verma
Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, learned Deputy Advocate
General, and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava,
learned Government Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
16.07.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
2
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Cyber Range
Police Station Ambikapur District – Surguja (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4),3(5),317(4),111 of the
B.N.S & Section 66 (D) of the I.T. Act & 21(1),21(2),21(3) of the
Banning Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ravi
Mohan Goswami, aged about 44 years, resident of Sadar Road,
Ambikapur, submitted a written complaint before the Incharge,
Cyber (Chhattisgarh). Range Police Station, stating that he is a
share-market trader and, during the year 2024, he received calls
from several unknown mobile numbers, including 8570064555,
8424855648, 8395943211 and 9991991448, whose callers
induced him to invest money in share trading by promising high
and assured profits. It is alleged that the said persons persuaded
him to install applications such as “Money Trade 365” and
“SkyTrade” from the Play Store and thereafter asked him to
make deposits through QR codes and online transfers. The
complainant states that, after an initial false display of profits in
the said applications, he transferred a cumulative amount of
Rs.20,15,000/-
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
without there being any cogent or legally admissible material
3
connecting him with the alleged offence. It is contended that the
essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are conspicuously
absent, inasmuch as the complainant, despite lodging the
complaint on 03.03.2025, voluntarily continued to transfer money
on 03.04.2025, 04.04.2025 and 08.04.2025, which itself
demolishes the allegation of deception or dishonest inducement
and indicates that the transactions were made voluntarily. It is
further submitted that the applicant’s arrest is illegal, as the
mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure were not complied with. No notice under
Section 41A CrPC was ever served upon the applicant, nor was
any satisfaction note under Section 41(1)(b) CrPC prepared
before effecting the arrest, contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. It is
also argued that the applicant was never supplied with the written
grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50(1) CrPC,
Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and
Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, thereby
rendering his continued detention illegal. Learned counsel further
submits that the prosecution case itself is inherently doubtful, as
while the FIR alleges cheating to the tune of approximately Rs.20
lakhs, the prosecution material reveals that the complainant
himself transferred only Rs.1 lakh from his own account, whereas
4
the remaining alleged transactions were made from third-party
accounts, whose account holders have neither lodged any
complaint nor have they been examined as witnesses. It is
further contended that none of the alleged cheated amounts
have been credited to the account of the present applicant, no
financial benefit has accrued to him, and there exists no financial
nexus between the applicant and the alleged proceeds of crime.
The implication of the applicant rests solely upon the disclosure
statements of co-accused persons, which, in the absence of any
recovery or discovery attributable to the applicant, have no
evidentiary value in law. Learned counsel also submits that the
entire prosecution case is based upon documentary and
electronic evidence, such as bank statements, account records,
digital trails and electronic data, all of which are already in the
custody of the investigating agency, leaving no possibility of
tampering with the evidence if the applicant is enlarged on bail. It
is further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and
no specific allegation of inducement, participation,
communication or receipt of any cheated amount has been
levelled against him. The applicant has fully cooperated with the
investigation and undertakes to continue extending such
cooperation during the trial. Learned counsel further submits that
the co-accused, namely, Rohan Kandera (MCRC
No.10335/2025), Vishal Yadav (MCRC No.10457/2025), Chetan
(MCRC No.10048/2025), and Sandeep and Saurabh (MCRC
5
No.10072/2025), have already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 05.02.2026, and since the role attributed to the
present applicant is similar, he is also entitled to the benefit of
parity. It is lastly submitted that the learned Trial Court rejected
the applicant’s bail application by passing a mechanical order
without recording any specific finding regarding the individual role
attributed to the applicant or independently appreciating the
material available against him. The applicant is not a flight risk, is
ready to furnish adequate surety, and undertakes to abide by all
the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular
bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits
that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further
submitted that, in compliance with the order dated 17.06.2026
passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer has filed an
affidavit detailing the specific role of the present applicant in the
organised cyber-fraud syndicate. According to the prosecution,
the investigation has established that the applicant, Ankit Gupta,
was the principal on-ground operations manager of the
MoneyTrade365/SmartTrade365 cyber-fraud network and was
working under the directions of the absconding kingpins, Anshul
Ginotra and Garvit Jain. It is submitted that the applicant was
responsible for managing the India-based operations of the
syndicate, including bank accounts, calling agents, operators,
6
transaction management and panel operations. It is further
submitted that the investigation conducted through GoDaddy
records reveals that the domain SmartTrade365.com, which was
used for operating the fraudulent platform, was purchased
through a mobile number linked to the applicant by using forged
identity documents. The prosecution contends that the technical
records prima facie establish that the applicant purchased and
controlled the said fraudulent domain.
5. Learned State Counsel further submits that the applicant was
apprehended on 30.01.2026 during a police raid conducted at
DLF Apartment, Tower-L, Moti Nagar, Delhi, where he was found
along with co-accused Gaurav Vohra and Rampukar Sahu @
Chandan while actively operating the fraudulent trading platform.
The raid was videographed in the presence of independent
witnesses, and several mobile phones and a laptop were seized
from his possession. It is submitted that the forensic examination
of the seized electronic devices revealed extensive digital
evidence connecting the applicant with the operation of the
cyber-fraud syndicate. The investigation further shows that the
applicant was using multiple encrypted foreign communication
numbers and remained in constant contact with co-accused
Avnik Mansukhbhai Limbani @ Chirag, the developer of the
fraudulent platforms. According to the prosecution, the applicant
also disclosed important facts regarding the functioning of the
syndicate, which were subsequently corroborated by the
7
statements of other accused persons and the electronic evidence
collected during the investigation.
6. Learned State Counsel further submits that the investigation has
revealed that the fraudulent platforms handled transactions of
approximately Rs.25 to 30 lakhs per day, which is supported by
Excel sheets, digital records and other electronic evidence
recovered during the investigation. It is also alleged that the
applicant acted as an administrator of several WhatsApp and
Telegram groups created for managing different aspects of the
cyber-fraud operation, thereby demonstrating his managerial role
in the syndicate. The applicant is further alleged to have recruited
persons for the Dubai-based operations by arranging visas, flight
tickets and accommodation, and thereafter trained them in
handling bank accounts, digital wallets and online fund transfers.
According to the prosecution, after their return to India, the
applicant supplied laptops, mobile phones and financial
assistance to continue the fraudulent activities from different
locations within the country. It is also submitted that the applicant
coordinated the procurement and supply of numerous bank
accounts through different suppliers, including Piyush Sharma @
Guru, Nitin Ginotra and Ashish Gupta @ Aashu, which were used
for receiving the amounts cheated from the victims.
7. Learned State Counsel lastly submits that the WhatsApp chats
and other electronic records establish that the applicant
supervised the procurement and deployment of bank accounts
8
for the fraudulent platforms and administered a WhatsApp group
titled “All Bank Id Password”, through which he regularly shared
bank account credentials, login IDs and transaction passwords
with other members of the syndicate for routing the proceeds of
crime. It is further submitted that the applicant coordinated with
Siddharth Sikka regarding the transfer of fraud proceeds through
QuickWeb and other digital payment platforms between India
and Dubai. The bank statements of the account maintained in the
name of the applicant’s wife, Rakhi Gupta, allegedly reveal that
the applicant’s share of the proceeds of crime was regularly
deposited therein. It is also submitted that several of the bank
accounts procured under the applicant’s supervision have been
linked with numerous cyber-crime complaints registered across
different States through the Samanvay Cyber Crime Portal,
thereby indicating the nationwide operation of the syndicate. In
these circumstances, Learned State Counsel submits that the
electronic evidence, digital records, forensic analysis, bank
transactions, WhatsApp chats and the affidavit filed by the
Investigating Officer clearly establish the applicant’s central
managerial role in the organised cyber-fraud syndicate.
Considering the gravity and magnitude of the offence, the
organised nature of the crime, the huge financial loss caused to
innocent investors and the overwhelming prima facie material
collected during the investigation, it is submitted that the
applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.
9
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the case diary, the charge-sheet, and the material available on
record, this Court finds that the prosecution case, prima facie,
reveals the involvement of the present applicants in an organised
cyber-fraud syndicate operating through fraudulent online
investment and share trading platforms. The prosecution case, in
brief, is that the complainant, Ravi Mohan Goswami, lodged a
written complaint before Police Station Ambikapur, District
Surguja, alleging that unknown persons, by using mobile
numbers 8577064555, 8424855648, 8395943211 and
9991991448, induced him to invest money in the share market
on the false promise of earning higher returns. Pursuant thereto,
the accused persons got installed mobile applications, namely
Money Trade 365 and Skytrade, on the complainant’s mobile
phone and directed him to transfer money through QR Codes
provided by them. Acting on such inducement, the complainant
transferred a total amount of Rs.21,15,000/- in 84 instalments
from his various bank accounts, including his pension accounts,
and was cheated of the said amount. On the basis of the
complaint, the FIR was registered and the matter was
investigated. During the investigation, the police collected
electronic evidence, bank transaction details, digital records,
witness statements, and other material, which, prima facie, show
10
the active involvement of the present applicants in the alleged
offence. The allegations relate to a large-scale organised
economic offence involving cheating of innocent investors
through fake online trading platforms, resulting in substantial
financial loss. Such offences are serious in nature and have a
wide impact on public confidence in digital financial transactions.
As regards the plea of parity, this Court finds that the role
attributed to the present applicants is different and more serious
than that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail.
The material collected during the investigation prima facie
indicates that the present applicants played an active and
important role in the operation of the cyber-fraud syndicate.
Therefore, their case stands on a different footing from that of the
co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, and they are not
entitled to claim the benefit of parity. Considering the nature and
gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the
present applicants, and the material collected during the
investigation indicating their prima facie involvement, this Court is
of the opinion that no case for grant of regular bail is made out.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of
regular bail to the present applicants, and the bail application is
hereby rejected.
10. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants namely, Vicky
Kumar @ Anurag (Rocky), Ramdeep Kumar @ Shibu & Nitin
Ginotra involved in Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police
11
Station – Cyber Range Police Station Ambikapur District –
Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections
318(4),3(5),317(4),111 of the B.N.S & Section 66 (D) of the I.T.
Act & 21(1),21(2),21(3) of the Banning Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Act, is rejected.
11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to
proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
12. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the
trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
ChiefJustice
vaibhav
