1 CGHC010293852026 2026:CGHC:34207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.7153 of 2026 Utkarsh Verma S/o Chandrpraksh Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o H.N.3413, Rawatpura, Colony Bhathagaon, P.S. Tikrapara, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gobra Navapara, Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar along with Ms. Kiran Chandra and Anjana Banjare, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.06 15:14:14 +0530 2 connection with Crime No.0066/2026 registered at Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rakesh Kansari alleged that his father had deposited a sum of Rs.2 crore on 20.07.2020 in a joint savings account opened in the names of the family members at DCB Bank, Kurra. It is alleged that on the same day, five life insurance policies were issued in the name of Aditya Birla Life Insurance, for which premiums amounting to Rs.3,82,000/- were paid and the maturity amount was payable on 20.07.2025. Thereafter, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant and his family members, several additional insurance policies were allegedly purchased, the registered mobile numbers linked to the policies and bank accounts were changed and loans were fraudulently obtained against the policies. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.16,30,000/- was withdrawn from the accounts after changing the registered mobile numbers and that the complainant later came to know about the alleged fraud through Mohan, an agent of Aditya Birla Life Insurance. It is alleged that thereafter the main accused i.e. the present Applicant returned Rs.10,30,000/- through bank transfer and 3 Rs.4,00,000/- in cash, but failed to return the remaining amount. It is further alleged that an overdraft account was also opened in the name of the complainant's mother without her consent, resulting in further misappropriation of Rs.27,00,000/- and that loose cheques were misused for unauthorized withdrawals. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed criminal breach of trust and forgery, causing wrongful loss of about Rs.29,00,000/- to the complainant and his family. On the basis of these allegations, the offences as mentioned above were registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the Applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.03.2026. It is also submitted that co-accused Madhavi Kaushik has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6213/2026 and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present Applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is lastly submitted that trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the present Applicant may be 4 enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the present Applicant is the main accused in the case. It is submitted that as observed by this Court in paragraph 6 of the order dated 13.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6213/2026 while granting bail to co-accused Madhavi Kaushik, the present Applicant is the principal accused. It is further submitted that the Applicant forged the signatures of the complainant and his family members, fraudulently withdrew approximately Rs.29,00,000/- from their bank accounts and also availed fraudulent loans of about Rs.30,00,000/- against their accounts without their knowledge or consent and therefore, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the pivotal role attributed to the present Applicant, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the period of custody of the Applicant since 01.03.2026, the fact that co-accused Madhavi Kaushik has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.6213/2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without commenting 5 anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let Applicant-Utkarsh Verma involved in Crime No. 0066/2026 registered at Police Station Gobra Navapara, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they 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/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel. In case of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 6 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/them in accordance with law. 7. 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 Priya