1 2026:CGHC:23891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4540 of 2026 Pramod Dewangan S/o Heeralal Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Mangla, Police Station And Civil Line, Tehsil And Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. 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. 390/2025 registered at Police Station- Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 3(5), 61, and 249(2) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the prime accused, Ritu Sahu, maintained a bank account with HDFC Bank, which had been put on hold by Police Station Sarsiwan in connection with Crime No.131/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2005. After being granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the said crime, she submitted an application before the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, seeking removal of the hold from her account along with a document purportedly bearing the receipt/endorsement of Police Station Sarsiwan. Acting upon the said document and after due authorization, the present applicant processed the payment/released the amount to the account holder. During the course of investigation, it was found that the alleged receipt/endorsement of Police Station Sarsiwan was forged and fabricated. Consequently, on the written complaint lodged by the Branch Manager, namely Vikas Kshatriya, Crime No.390/2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 3(5), 61 and 249(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The present applicant was arrested on 08.02.2026 and, after completion of investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, the allegations levelled against him are false, baseless and malicious. It 3 is submitted that at the relevant time, the applicant was working as a Cashier in HDFC Bank and had merely acted in discharge of his official duties by processing the payment to the account holder pursuant to the directions of his superior officers. It is further submitted that the authority to remove the hold from a bank account vested exclusively with the Branch Manager and the Authorizer, and the applicant had no role in taking such decision. The applicant has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum statement and no incriminating article or material has been seized from his possession during the course of investigation. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent employee having deep roots in society. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 08.02.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant is a bank employee who, in connivance with the other accused persons, facilitated the release of the amount from an account which had been placed on hold in connection with a serious economic offence. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, it has been found that the document purportedly issued by Police Station Sarsiwan for removal of the hold was forged and fabricated, and despite the suspicious circumstances 4 surrounding the transaction, the applicant proceeded with the payment, thereby playing an active role in the commission of the offence. He further submits that the allegations pertain to forgery, cheating and misuse of official position, which are grave in nature and have serious financial implications. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected during investigation and the applicant’s involvement therein, it is prayed that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that thought the allegations against the applicant are that the present applicant, being a bank employee, facilitated the release of the amount from an account which was under hold on the basis of a forged and fabricated document purportedly issued by Police Station Sarsiwan, but it is to be noted that the applicant is in jail since 08.02.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Pramod Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 390/2025 registered at Police Station- Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 5 336(3), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 341(1), 341(2), 3(5), 61, and 249(2) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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. (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. 6 (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 Rahul Dewangan