1 CGHC010275722026 2026:CGHC:37636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6600 of 2026 Laxmichand Dewangan S/o Madhoram Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- And Post- Pirda, Police Station Basna, Tehsil - Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Basna District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. MCRC No. 6733 of 2026 Manohar Jatwar S/o Resham Jatwar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tarekela, Police Station Basna, Tehsil - Pithora District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O9cer, Arakshi Kendra Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. Since the above two bail applications are arising out of same Crime number registered at same police station so they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.137/2025, registered at Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(3)/318(4), 238, 61(2) and 317(4) of BNS. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 01.04.2025, complainant Rajni Dewangan, resident of Village Pirda, appeared before Police Station Basna and lodged a written complaint alleging that co- accused Sudarshan Sahu visited her house and on the pretext that bene?ts under the Mahtari Vandan Yojana were being credited and that the Government was distributing cookers free of cost, obtained her thumb impression through a mobile ?ngerprint device. Thereafter, he again visited her house with a new cooker and obtained her thumb impressions on several occasions by connecting his mobile phone with the ?ngerprint device. Subsequently, on the pretext of providing a mobile phone on instalments and thereafter cancelling the same, the complainant's 3 thumb impressions were allegedly obtained repeatedly. It is alleged that on 28.10.2024, when representatives of IndusInd Bank visited the village and demanded repayment of loan instalments from certain villagers, including Ghanshyam Yadav, it came to light that loans had allegedly been obtained in the names of several women of Village Pirda without their knowledge and consent and the loan amounts had been withdrawn fraudulently. During investigation, it was revealed that co-accused Sudarshan Sahu, along with the present applicant/accused Laxmichand Dewangan and co-accused Manohar Jatwar, allegedly acted in connivance with certain employees of Bharat Financial Bank and, by alluring the women with bene?ts under the Mahtari Vandan Yojana and free cookers, dishonestly obtained their Aadhaar details and ?ngerprints. It is further alleged that the accused persons misused the BC ID of IndusInd Bank and, without the consent or knowledge of the concerned women, facilitated the sanction of loans in the names of 138 women of Village Pirda, amounting to crores of rupees, and thereafter fraudulently withdrew and distributed the loan amount amongst themselves. Thus, on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, the present applicant is alleged to have been involved in the aforesaid o=ence along with the other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that both the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the principal allegations in the written complaint and FIR regarding inducement of the victims, obtaining their thumb 4 impressions and biometric details, procuring loans and withdrawal of the loan amounts are against co-accused Sudarshan Sahu, whereas no speci?c overt act has been attributed to applicant Manohar Jatwar in the FIR and his name has surfaced only during the course of investigation. So far as applicant Laxmichand Dewangan is concerned, it is submitted that he is merely a Choice Centre Operator and earns a ?xed commission for providing biometric-based services and there is no material to show that the alleged loan amount was withdrawn through his Choice Centre ID or that he derived any wrongful gain from the alleged transactions. It is further submitted that the prosecution case primarily rests upon documentary and electronic evidence, which are already in the possession of the investigating agency, and therefore, their further custodial detention is not required. Learned counsel further submits that both the applicants are in jail since 01.07.2026, the charge- sheet has not yet been ?led and the applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the main accused, Sudarshan Sahu, against whom speci?c allegations have been made, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5070/2026 and, therefore, the present applicants are also entitled to the bene?t of parity. Hence, they prays for grant of regular bail to both the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature and the investigation is still going on and the charge-sheet has not yet been ?led. However, he could not dispute 5 the fact that co-accused Sudarshan Sahu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against them and the fact that the charge-sheet has not yet been ?led and the investigation is still going on and both the applicants are in jail since 01.07.2026, the prosecution case primarily rests upon documentary and electronic evidence and the applicants have no criminal antecedents and further considering the fact that co-accused Sudarshan Sahu, against whom speci?c allegations have been made in the FIR regarding inducement of the victims, obtaining their biometric details and procuring loans, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5070/2026 vide order dated 09.07.2026 and the case of the applicants are better than the case of co- accused thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is a ?t case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. 9. Let applicants, Laxmichand Dewangan and Manohar Jatwar, involved in Crime No.137/2025, registered at Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(3)/318(4), 238, 61(2) and 317(4) of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 6 the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall ?le an undertaking to the e=ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ?xed 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date ?xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su9cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date ?xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ?xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 7 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without su9cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 10. O9ce is directed to provide a certi?ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal