1 CGHC010211482026 2026:CGHC:32406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 956 of 2026 Lokesh Kumar Nishad S/o Komal Kumar Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Santoshi Ward No. 09, (Wrongly Writing As Warn In The Cause Title) Police Station Rajhara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Dallirajhara, District- Balod Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Salin Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 28.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/2026 registered at Police Station- Dallirajhara, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Director of Arisht Finance Company lodged a written report at Police Station RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Rajhara, District Balod, on 27.04.2026 alleging that the company was engaged in the business of providing finance and had a branch office at Rajhara (Kamal Motors). It is alleged that the present applicant, along with 16 other accused persons, was entrusted with the task of verifying the documents of prospective borrowers seeking loans from the company. During the course of business, it was discovered that the applicant and the co-accused persons had allegedly facilitated the sanction of loans in favour of certain borrowers on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and, thereafter, the loan amounts were withdrawn, thereby causing wrongful loss to the finance company. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was registered as Crime No. 98/2026 at Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the applicant was employed with Arisht Finance Company from the year 2021 to 2024 and thereafter resigned from the company and joined another organization. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged only after certain borrowers failed to repay the loan amounts and refused to make the settlement payments demanded by the company, and that the present proceedings have been initiated to exert pressure upon the former employees of the company. It is contended that the applicant was not entrusted with the work of verification of loan 3 documents and that such verification was allegedly carried out by co-accused Amar Markam and Ajay Dewangan. It is further submitted that there is no allegation or material showing any money trail connecting the applicant with the alleged offence, nor is there any allegation that he misused his position or misappropriated any amount belonging to the company. He submits that co-accused persons, who had availed the loan facilities from the company and subsequently defaulted in repayment, have falsely implicated the applicant in the matter. It is also argued that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, and no incriminating material has been collected against him to prima facie establish his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of cheating, forgery and fabrication of documents, whereby loans were allegedly sanctioned in favour of ineligible borrowers on the basis of forged documents, causing substantial financial loss to the complainant company. It is submitted that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, was part of the process through which the fraudulent loan transactions were facilitated and that the investigation has revealed his prima facie involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. He further submits that the matter is still under investigation and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be 4 required for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete conspiracy. It is also pointed out that the bail application of co- accused Rakesh Upadhyay has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA No. 1048/2026 vide order dated 08.07.2026 and, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary and further the fact that, while working with the complainant finance company, the applicant along with other co-accused persons, facilitated the sanction of loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, thereby causing wrongful loss to the company and corresponding gain to the beneficiaries of such loans. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the IPC and involve accusations of cheating and forgery having serious financial ramifications. At this stage, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant in the transactions under scrutiny and the investigation is still in progress. The contention of the applicant that he had resigned from the company and had no role in document verification are matters to be examined during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. Further, this 5 Court finds that the case pertains to a larger conspiracy involving several accused persons and custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be ruled out. This Court also takes note of the fact that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Rakesh Upadhyay has already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 1048/2026 vide order dated 08.07.2026 after considering the nature of allegations arising out of the same crime. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstance warranting a different view, and considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Lokesh Kumar Nishad, involved in Crime No. 98/2026 registered at Police Station- Dallirajhara, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan