1 2026:CGHC:117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9415 of 2025 B. Ishwar Rao S/o B.P. Raju Aged About 38 Years R/o Quarter No. 05/b Railwary Avenue Sector- 06, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava Senior Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Chhabra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2026 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. 182/2025, registered at Police Station – Dhamdha District – VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.03 11:19:21 +0530 2 Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 477-A of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 03.11.2025, a written complaint was submitted by Complainant Chandrika Patel, alleging that HDFC Bank employee Vikas Soni and Madhu Patel of Village Parsakol, in conspiracy with others, committed large- scale cheating and misappropriation of money from her and multiple villagers of the Dhamdha area. It is alleged that between 01.01.2024 and 29.05.2024, the accused persons falsely promised the complainant and many other individuals that they would be provided Prime Minister Dairy Production Loans with 40% subsidy, low interest for six months, and favourable repayment terms. On this pretext, the accused allegedly opened multiple bank accounts of the victims in HDFC Bank, Dhamdha, and collected money from them in the name of loan processing, insurance, security deposits, and other charges. On the pretext, the accused Vikas Soni and Madhu Patel arranged loans (maximum up to 10 lakh each) for all the loan applicants and then, using the victims' cheques and online applications like PhonePe, they transferred the money into the accounts of Madhu Patel and other individuals, thereby committing fraud of approximately 45,92,250/. ₹ 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in 3 the aforesaid case. He further submitshe was not posted in the HDFC Bank, Dhamdha branch during the period of the alleged incident from 01.01.2024 to 29.05.2024, and there is not even an iota of evidence against him; he has no prior criminal antecedents and is innocent, having committed no offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 120-B and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has been falsely implicated in the present case, as even the contents of the FIR dated 29.05.2024 attribute allegations only against co-accused Vikas Soni and not against the present applicant, a vital aspect which was ignored by the learned Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), thereby clearly demonstrating that the applicant is not connected with the alleged offences. The applicant was arrested in a motivated and illegal manner without being informed of the grounds of arrest, in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Court below further erred in relying solely on the memorandum statement of co-accused Vikas Soni to allege connivance of the applicant, despite there being no memorandum statement of the present applicant on record and no independent or corroborative evidence whatsoever to substantiate such allegations. It is settled law that a memorandum statement is admissible only to the extent it leads to discovery of a material fact and can be used only against the maker thereof, and in the present case no discovery of any material fact has been effected pursuant to the said statement, 4 rendering reliance upon it legally impermissible and the arrest of the applicant unsustainable in law. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is seven years, and it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Moreover, the applicant has been in jail since 04.11.2025, and continued incarceration would severely affect the livelihood and sustenance of his family, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has not been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and further taking into account that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 04.11.2025, and that the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, B. Ishwar Rao, involved in Crime No. 182/2025, registered at Police Station – Dhamdha District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 120-B, 477-A of the IPC, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court 5 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. (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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. 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 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate 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 him in accordance with law. 8. 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) Chief Justice vaibhav