1 2026:CGHC:25646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5507 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(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.37/2026 registered at Police Station- Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, who is employed as a school teacher, had obtained a personal loan from HDFC Bank, Kanker, in January, 2025. During the processing of the said loan, she came into contact with the present applicant, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.06.23 15:47:16 +0530 2 who was working as a bank employee. It is alleged that thereafter the applicant approached the complainant on the pretext of completing KYC formalities, obtained access to her mobile phone, installed various loan applications therein, procured OTPs received on her mobile number, and subsequently deleted the said applications from the device. The complainant later came to know, upon visiting a bank branch and verifying her credit report, that several loans amounting to Rs.6,35,496/- had been fraudulently obtained in her name through different loan applications without her knowledge or consent. It is further alleged that the applicant unauthorisedly accessed her YONO SBI account and transferred an amount of about Rs.1,00,000/- to his own account and other accounts, thereby causing a total wrongful loss of Rs.7,35,496/- to the complainant. On the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, the FIR was registered against the applicant and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the allegations levelled against him are matters of evidence which can be tested only during trial. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has already been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution case is primarily based on documentary and 3 electronic evidence already collected by the investigating agency and, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. It is also contended that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 18.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and disclose a well-planned act of financial fraud involving misuse of the complainant’s personal and banking credentials. It is further submitted that the bail application of the applicant arising out of Crime No. 64/2026 has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5456/2026. According to the State, the involvement of the applicant in another case of similar nature indicates his propensity to commit such offences and, therefore, he does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. It is thus prayed that the present bail application be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary material, it appears that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and pertain to fraudulent procurement of loans in the name of the complainant and 4 unauthorized transfer of money from her bank account. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Further, this Court finds that the bail application of the applicant in another criminal case bearing Crime No. 64/2026 involving similar allegations has already been rejected by this Court. Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the antecedents of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Laxman Sahu, involved in Crime No.37/2026 registered at Police Station- Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) of the BNS for grant of regular bail to the applicant, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. 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 gouri