1 2026:CGHC:25430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5456 of 2026 Laxman Sahu S/o Ramadheen Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Chhachhi, Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 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. 64/2026 registered at Police Station - Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.23 11:27:02 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Chhabilal Mandavi submitted a written complaint against the applicant/accused at Police Station Kanker stating that in the year 2025, he had applied for a personal loan at the HDFC Bank Kanker branch, for which the processing work was done by theapplicant/accused, and on 15/03/2025, a loan of Rs. 21 lakh was approved. The applicant/accused came to him in the name of KYC for the said loan and said that KYC has to be done after one year of the ongoing loan, to which the complainant said that KYC is done in the bank, so how can you do KYC by coming to him? The applicant/accused replied that now a days KYC is also done online, so he has been sent by the bank. The applicant/accused asked for his mobile and, in the name of doing KYC, asked for his PAN card, Aadhaar card, and ATM card, and tampered with his mobile and Yono App. When his Yono App got locked, he went to the bank on 10/02/2026 to submit an application to open the Yono App, and when he got the statement of his savings account number 31561554891 maintained at SBI Branch Kanker, he came to know that on 09/02/2026, Rs.20,900/- was deposited, which was withdrawn immediately; apart from that, on 10/02/2026, a deposit of Rs.3,70,054/- was shown and immediately after that, Rs.2,91,000/- was withdrawn. When he inquired about the same with the applicant/accused, he refused to tell, and when he talked about filing an FIR, the accused told him that he had got a loan of Rs.4,20,414/- and Rs.2,19,042/-respectively, totaling Rs.6,39,456/- approved in his name from 02 branches and had transferred Rs.5,00,000/- of that into his own account. On the basis of the said written complaint of the complainant, Police Station Kanker registered the First Information 3 Report against the applicant/accused and after investigation, submitted the charge sheet for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations levelled against him are matters of evidence which can only be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. It is submitted that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The prosecution case is primarily based on documentary and electronic evidence, including alleged financial transactions, banking records, loan applications and account operations, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency, leaving no possibility of the applicant interfering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 15.02.2026 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, has deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as the prosecution proposes to examine several witnesses and prove various documents and electronic records. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his continued incarceration has caused severe financial hardship to his dependents. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial, remain present before the Trial Court as and when required, and 4 not to contact, influence or threaten any prosecution witness. It is thus submitted that further detention of the applicant is neither necessary for the purpose of investigation nor for securing the ends of justice and that he deserves to be enlarged on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has a previous criminal antecedent involving a similar nature of offence. Therefore, having regard to his criminal antecedents, no case for grant of bail is made out. 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 allegations levelled against the applicant, the material collected during investigation, and the case diary, this Court finds that the applicant, while working as a bank employee, is alleged to have gained access to the complainant's banking credentials and, under the pretext of carrying out KYC formalities, obtained and misused the complainant's personal and banking information. The investigation prima facie reveals that loans amounting to Rs.6,39,456/- were sanctioned in the complainant's name without his knowledge, out of which an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was allegedly transferred and misappropriated by the applicant. The allegations are supported by bank records and other documentary material collected during the course of investigation. The offence alleged against the applicant is of 5 a serious nature involving breach of trust and financial fraud committed against a bank customer. It is also pertinent to note that another criminal case of similar nature has been registered against the applicant at Police Station Narharpur, which prima facie reflects his involvement in similar activities. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the existence of a similar criminal antecedent, and the possibility of the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Laxman Sahu, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station - Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of the BNS, 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 Vaibhav