1 2025:CGHC:23568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4400 of 2025 Makrand Mehar S/o Khilendra Mehar Aged About 43 Years R/o Moti Nagar Brij Nagar, Near Krishna Public School Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Thana- Ajad Chowk, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution's case, on 01.04.2025, the complainant, Gulshan Vishwakarma, filed a complaint alleging that the applicant opened a bank account at Federal Bank, Ambedkar Chowk, near Jail ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.14 12:08:39 +0530 2 Road, Raipur, in his name without his knowledge, using his documents. The applicant also allegedly took his ATM and passbook, promising to return them after verification within two days. However, a month later, the bank discovered suspicious transactions and informed him through a notice dated 26.02.2025, about unauthorized transactions totaling Rs. 9,21,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs.42,000/- and Rs. 5,11,000/-. Following this, a written complaint was lodged, and an offence was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that, according to the prosecution's case, it is clear that the present applicant did not receive any benefit from the complainant, and there is no evidence of loss to the complainant. He further submits that there is no evidence on record indicating the applicant's involvement in the crime. Notably, the complainant's statements are contradictory, as he claims the account was opened without his knowledge, yet also alleges that the applicant misused his ATM and passbook, which were taken with a promise to return them after verification within two days. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the present applicant committed any act of cheating against the complainant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant allegedly opened a bank account at Federal Bank in the complainant's name without his knowledge, using his documents. He also took the complainant's ATM and passbook, promising to return them after verification. Later, the 3 bank informed the complainant about unauthorized transactions Rs. 9,21,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs.42,000/- and Rs. 5,11,000/- through a notice dated 26.02.2025, thereby, the applicant committed fraud, hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the applicant allegedly opened a bank account at Federal Bank in the complainant's name without his knowledge, using his documents, he also took the complainant's ATM and passbook, promising to return them after verification, later, the bank informed the complainant about unauthorized transactions Rs. 9,21,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs.42,000/- and Rs. 5,11,000/- through a notice dated 26.02.2025, thereby, the applicant committed fraud, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Makrand Mehar, involved in Crime No. 84/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 Abhishek