1 2026:CGHC:22592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4457 of 2026 Imran Khan S/o. Ahmed Ibrahim Aged About 33 Years R/o. House No. 217, Gautiya Para, Pawni, P.O.- Pawni, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Trough- Station House Officer, Police Station Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 .05.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 113/2025 registered at Police Station – Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66 (D) of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 10346/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Puran Das Vaishnav, lodged a written complaint on 15/04/2025 alleging, inter alia, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.15 10:15:30 +0530 2 that from 03/09/2016 to 29/06/2024, the applicant was operating a KIOSK Choice Centre at Bilaigarh. It is alleged that the father of the complainant, Late Anand Das Vaishnav, used to visit the said KIOSK centre for withdrawal of money from his bank account. It is further alleged that, due to his old age, the complainant’s father occasionally requested the applicant to visit his residence for completing procedures related to withdrawal of money. Accordingly, the applicant used to visit the house of the complainant. The banking authorities also, from time to time, required the complainant’s father to complete life certificate and KYC-related formalities. The complainant has alleged that the applicant, taking undue advantage of the process of updating the KYC details of his father, obtained his thumb impressions and thereafter withdrew lump-sum amounts from his account. It is also alleged that the applicant utilized the said amount and purchased certain properties in the name of his father, who has been arrayed as a co-accused in the matter. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and the co-accused persons. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that the applicant misled his father and withdrew an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13/12/2018 and thereafter an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 06/05/2019 by preparing forged bond documents. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. The present is the second bail application, preferred on the ground that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025. On a pointed query made by the Court regarding the status of the trial, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the discharge application has already been rejected on 18.03.2026. Further, the 3 applicant has one previous criminal antecedents in which he is on bail. Further, there are 24 prosecution witnesses but till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that this Court has already rejected the bail application of the applicant vide order dated 17.12.2025 on merits. It is further submitted that there are serious allegations levelled against the applicant. The record indicates that substantial amounts were fraudulently withdrawn from the bank accounts of the deceased and his family members and transferred to the accounts of the applicant. It is also alleged that forged FD and policy documents were prepared, which have been verified by the concerned institutions and found to be fabricated. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits, the present is the second bail application, preferred on the ground that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.08.2025, looking to the seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged misappropriation, and the material available on record against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Imran Khan, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, involved in Crime No. 113/2025 registered at Police Station – Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66 (D) of 4 Information Technology Act, 2000, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti