1 CGHC010256722026 2026:CGHC:28877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6017 of 2026 Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Khagesh Chandrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Aodaan, P.S. Palari, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh Current Address B S G P Colony, Room No. 04 Block No. 02 Daldal Sheoni, P.S. Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 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. 101/2026 registered at Police Station – Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),61(2),204 and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Krishna Rao, a resident VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.10 17:30:28 +0530 2 of BSUP Colony, Daldal Seoni, who works as a delivery boy with Zomato, lodged a written complaint alleging that about six months prior to the registration of the FIR, while delivering an order, he came into contact with co-accused Horilal Pankaj, who introduced himself as a loan agent. Horilal Pankaj assured the complainant that he could arrange a loan for him and thereafter introduced him to the present applicant as another loan agent. It is alleged that, on the pretext of processing the loan, the complainant was induced to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash towards documentation charges. Thereafter, in furtherance of their common intention, the present applicant and the co-accused allegedly procured loans amounting to Rs.27,50,000/- from various banks in the name of the complainant without his knowledge or consent and dishonestly withdrew and misappropriated the loan amount, thereby cheating the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the present crime was registered against the applicant and the co-accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations made in the FIR are general, vague and do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences, and that the FIR has been lodged with a mala fide intention after an unexplained delay of about nine months and fifteen days. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the complainant had first come into contact with co-accused Horilal Pankaj, who introduced himself as a loan agent, and thereafter introduced the present applicant to the complainant. It is argued that the complainant's version is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he alleges 3 that substantial loans were obtained in his name from various banks without his knowledge, although such loans could not have been sanctioned without compliance with the prescribed banking procedures, including verification of identity documents and execution of necessary loan documents. It is further submitted that the complainant has not lodged any complaint against the concerned banks or their officials, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant himself had availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda and had executed an agreement dated 25.09.2025, which belies his claim that he had never taken any loan. It is further contended that the alleged offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.04.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 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 4 gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 18.04.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar, involved in Crime No. 101/2026 registered at Police Station – Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),61(2),204 and 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 she 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 her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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. 5 (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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav