1 2025:CGHC:16488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2788 of 2025 Ankit Gupta, Aged About 27 Years, S/o Suresh Prasad Caste Gupta R/o Village Sawarpara Sedam, P.S. Batouli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station Baradwar District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 120 B of I.P.C. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.14 12:41:26 +0530 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant has lodged written report that the co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandra got a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-sanctioned in name of complainant from Indusind Bank after taking documents and thumb impression from the complainant and thereafter used his mobile to download an app and took O.T.P and withdrew the loan amount from his account, in which the then Manager of Bank was also accomplice. Hence the offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit the present applicant has been made accused on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandra, stating that the present applicant being the Bank Manager was also involved in the offence for opening the loan account and withdrawal of the amount whereas the 164 statement of the complainant shows the manner in which he has used Mobile of the complainant by fraud to get the O.T.P to withdraw the amount from his account. He would submit that the applicant being the Branch Manager of the Bank has opened the account after getting the documents from the complainant and the co-accused Jitesh Chandra working as an agent of the Bank has defrauded the complainant using his mobile to obtain the O.T.P used to withdraw the loan amount, which goes to show the falsity of the allegation. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 10.01.2025 and the charge sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of offence, also considering the fact that the applicant was the Branch Manager of the Bank who has opened a loan account of Rs.1,20,000/- in the name of the complainant and the applicant has been made an accused only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandra who was agent of the bank got a loan of Rs.1,20,000/-sanctioned in name of complainant from Indusind Bank after taking documents and thumb impression from the complainant and thereafter used his mobile to download an app and took O.T.P and withdrew the loan amount from his account, also considering the period of detention of the applicant i.e. since 10/01/2025 and charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Ankit Gupta, involved in Crime No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station Baradwar District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 120 B of I.P.C, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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. 4 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - SSS Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri