Chattisgarh High Court
Yashir Shafi Charalu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18207
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 2148 of 2026
1 - Yashir Shafi Charalu S.O. Md. Shafi Aged About 23 Years R/o Naid
Kadal Ranjar Masjid Shri Nagar, P.S. Janakadam, Dist Shreenagar (J.K.)
2 - Shakib Farukhdar S/o Farukh Ahemaddar Aged About 24 Years R/o
Batmalu Firodasabad P.S. Batmalu District Shreenagar (J.K.)
--- Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer P.S. City Kotwali
Raigarh (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Adv.
MCRC No. 2860 of 2026
Arshlan Afak S/o Mehrajuddin Asai Aged About 21 Years R/o Saturasai,
Karam Nagar, Shrinagar, Police Station- Shahidganj, District- Shrinagar
(Jammu And Kashmir)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Adv.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Adv.
2
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
21/04/2026
1.Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same incident and same crime numbers however, their offences are different, so they are being heard and decided by this common order.
2. The applicants, namely Yashir Shafi Charalu, Sakib Farukhdar and Arshlan Afak, have preferred their First Bail Applications under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 460/2025, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District: Raigarh (C.G.), wherein applicants Yashir Shafi Charalu and Sakib Farukhdar are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act, whereas applicant Arshlan Afak is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act. Hence, these bail applications.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt. Medni Patel, submitted a written report on 07.09.2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, stating that during the period from 20.05.2025 to 30.08.2025, she came across an advertisement on YouTube regarding share trading, wherein certain mobile numbers were provided. She, along with her husband, contacted those 3 numbers and they were informed about a "UK India Channel" and were induced to invest in share trading. Acting upon the instructions of the said persons, they started investing money and transferred amounts into various bank accounts as directed. They were also instructed to download a mobile application for trading purposes. As per the information provided to them, the "UK India Trading Channel" was being operated by Yashasvi Securities, having its address at Business Park, 20C Ganguly Sarani Complex, 9th Floor, Kolkata. Its operators, namely Nitin Sharma and Tejkumar Jain (stated to be SEBI-registered advisors), remained in continuous contact with them. The mobile numbers used by Nitin Sharma were 9060643727 and 8434379399, and those of Tejkumar Jain were 7669841741 and 8922017104. Communication took place through WhatsApp chats and calls. On their instructions, between 20.05.2025 and 30.08.2025, the complainant transferred a total amount of ₹1,08,44,025.16 (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Twenty-Five and Sixteen Paise only) into various bank accounts, details and UTR numbers of which are available with her. The said amount was reflected in the trading application, showing an inflated value of approximately ₹42 crores. However, when she attempted to withdraw the amount, she was asked to pay ₹5,00,000/- as brokerage charges, which she paid. Thereafter, when she again attempted to withdraw the amount, the same could not be withdrawn and upon contacting the said mobile numbers, they were found switched off and all communication through WhatsApp and 4 calls ceased, giving rise to suspicion of fraud. On the basis of the written complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 460/2025 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, and investigation was taken up.
During the course of investigation, it was found from the bank account details of the complainant and witnesses that out of the total amount, ₹32.50 lakhs had been transferred to the bank account of accused/applicant Yashir Shafi Charalu, resident of Srinagar. The CDR of the mobile number linked to the said account and the bank account details of IndusInd Bank, Srinagar (Account No. 258899282174) were examined, along with the Cyber Police Portal. It was revealed that the said amount of ₹32.50 lakhs was credited to the aforesaid account and was subsequently transferred to multiple accounts, including Axis Bank accounts (Nos. 924020059913251, 922020066786565, 920020055900024) and Jammu & Kashmir Bank accounts (Nos. 0217010100003200 and 217040100026504). Further, from Axis Bank Account No. 924020059913251, an amount of ₹10 lakhs was transferred to the State Bank of India account of co-accused Mehraj. It is further alleged that the said bank account of Yashir Shafi Charalu and the mobile SIM linked thereto were used in the commission of the offence with the active involvement of accused/applicant Arshlan Afak and his father Mehraj, and that accused Sakib Farukhdar, along with his associate Talib Safi Bhat, had taken the said SIM and account from Srinagar to Guwahati (Assam) and assisted in the online fraud. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in 5 furtherance of a common intention and as part of an organized scheme, committed online fraud and cheated the complainant of a total amount of ₹1,08,44,025.16. On finding sufficient material, the accused persons, namely (1) Yashir Shafi Charalu, (2) Sakib Farukhdar, (3) Mehrajuddin Asai, and (4) Arshlan Afak, were arrested on 19.11.2025, and information of arrest was duly communicated to their family members in writing. The accused were brought from Srinagar on transit remand and were taken into police custody remand till 25.11.2025, during which they were interrogated regarding other fraudulent transactions. It was revealed that amounts were also transferred to accounts located in Delhi, Assam, and Odisha, and efforts are being made to trace those account holders and mobile users. During investigation, Section 111 of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act were also added. The investigation is presently at a preliminary stage.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged, their arrest is primarily based on memorandum statements, which by themselves are weak pieces of evidence and in absence of any recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession or at the instance of any of the applicants and there is no independent, direct or cogent evidence connecting them with the alleged offence. It is also contended that the applicants were not named in the FIR and their implication is an afterthought; rather, 6 as per the prosecution case itself, the main role is attributed to other co-accused persons and the allegation against the present applicants is limited to receiving and transferring money, thereby clearly indicating absence of any mens rea on their part. Learned counsel further submits that no specific complaint of cheating, forgery or misappropriation has ever been lodged against the applicants personally and the entire proceedings are arbitrary in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the applicants belong to poor but respectable families are the sole earning members and due to their detention their families are facing severe financial hardship. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents of Srinagar (J&K) having deep roots in society and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. Lastly, it is contended that the applicants are in custody for a considerable period and their continued detention would serve no fruitful purpose; hence, they deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case pertains to a well-organized and large-scale cyber fraud, wherein the complainant has been duped of an amount exceeding ₹1 crore through a systematic and pre-planned modus operandi, and therefore, the allegations are serious in nature. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, a specific role of each of the applicants has surfaced. So far as applicant Yashir 7 Shafi Charalu is concerned, it is submitted that a substantial amount of ₹32.50 lakhs has been directly credited into his bank account and thereafter the said amount has been further routed to multiple bank accounts, clearly indicating his active involvement in layering and diversion of the cheated amount. With regard to applicant Sakib Farukhdar, it is submitted that he, along with co- accused, had taken the bank account and SIM linked with the said transactions from Srinagar to Guwahati (Assam) and actively assisted in execution of the online fraud, thereby playing a crucial role in facilitating the offence. As regards applicant Arshlan Afak, it is submitted that he, in connivance with co-accused including his father, was instrumental in operating and managing the bank accounts used in the commission of offence and had knowledge of the fraudulent transactions, thus showing his active participation in the crime. He further submits that considering the organized nature of the offence and the inter-State ramifications involving multiple bank accounts and locations, the role of the applicants cannot be said to be minor. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in progress and efforts are being made to trace other co-accused persons and the trail of the defrauded amount and therefore, at this stage, releasing the applicants on bail may adversely affect the investigation and there is likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It is further submitted that a letter has already been sent by the prosecution for verification of criminal antecedents of the applicants, however, no response has been received till date and therefore, their antecedents are yet to be fully 8 ascertained. In such circumstances, looking to the gravity of offence, manner of commission and the material collected during investigation, he prays for rejection of the bail applications.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. In compliance of the Court's order dated 09.03.2026, the concerned Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit stating that the complainant was induced through a YouTube advertisement relating to share trading and, acting upon such inducement, transferred a total amount of ₹1,08,44,025.16 to various bank accounts; however, despite paying ₹5,00,000/- as brokerage, she was unable to withdraw the amount and the accused persons became untraceable. During investigation, it was found that ₹32,50,000/- out of the defrauded amount was credited to the bank account of applicant Yashir Shafi Charalu, which was subsequently transferred to multiple accounts. It is further revealed that applicant Yashir Shafi Charalu had provided his bank account and SIM to co-accused Arshlan Afak and his father, and routed the said amount to different accounts for commission. On the basis of memorandum statements, it has also come on record that applicant Sakib Farukhdar had transported the bank kit and SIM to Guwahati (Assam) at the instance of co-accused persons and facilitated the offence. The applicants were arrested on 19.11.2025 and brought on transit remand. It is further submitted that if released on bail, there is every likelihood of the applicants 9 absconding and adversely affecting the investigation, as well as indulging in similar cyber offences again.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicants, the material available on record and the period of detention of the applicants since 19.11.2025, this Court finds that the applicants are in custody for a considerable period. It is also noteworthy that though the learned State counsel was granted sufficient opportunities on two occasions to verify and place on record the criminal antecedents of the applicants from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, no such report has been submitted till date. In absence of any material regarding criminal antecedents and taking into account that the role attributed to the present applicants is primarily based on memorandum statements and the investigation is still in progress, further custodial detention of the applicants does not appear to be warranted at this stage, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.
10. Let the Applicants- Yashir Shafi Charalu, Sakib Farukhdar and Arshlan Afak involved in Crime No. 460/2025, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District: Raigarh (C.G.), wherein applicants Yashir Shafi Charalu and Sakib Farukhdar are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 111, 3(5) of 10 the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act, whereas applicant Arshlan Afak is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act., be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.11
(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
11. However, this Court hope and trusts that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal