1 CGHC010240212026 2026:CGHC:34805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5847 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar S/o Ravindra Chaudhary Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Baravali, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur Bihar, Presently R/o L I C O)ce, Near Balod In The House Of Rakesh Rao Rajnandgaon Road, Balod, P.S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh (As Per Charge Sheet) (Complete Address Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik. Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. This is the 4rst bail application 4led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Mahendra Kumar Komare, a resident of Village Rengadabri, Police Station Mangchua, District Balod, along with other villagers, was allegedly induced by the accused persons on the false assurance of securing agricultural loans under a NABARD scheme for borewell excavation and wire fencing. It is alleged that, pursuant to such inducement, six bank accounts were opened in the names of six farmers in ICICI Bank and ESAF Small Finance Bank, Balod Branch, and a total amount of Rs.35,87,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from the said accounts by the accused persons. Upon discovering the alleged fraud, the complainant and other a=ected villagers lodged a written complaint before the police, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation, the police 4led the charge-sheet against the accused persons for the alleged commission of the o=ences. Hence, the present bail application. 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 applicant was working as a Relationship Manager at ICICI Bank, Balod Branch, and had no role whatsoever in the alleged o=ence or any connection with the co-accused persons. It is submitted that the farmers had themselves applied for agricultural loans under the NABARD Scheme, pursuant to which the loan amounts were duly sanctioned and credited into their respective bank accounts, and thereafter the borrowers themselves utilized the said amounts. When the borrowers subsequently defaulted in repayment of the loan instalments, the applicant, along 3 with other bank o)cials, visited the village in the course of his o)cial duties to request repayment, whereafter he was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged incident pertains to 03.05.2024, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 05.01.2026 after an unexplained and inordinate delay, for which no reason has been assigned in the FIR. It is further submitted that at the time of registration of the FIR for the o=ences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, the applicant was extended the bene4t of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and was released upon furnishing a personal bond; however, after the subsequent addition of Sections 111(1) and 316(5) of the BNS, he was arrested. It is also argued that even the charge-sheet does not disclose any material to establish that the applicant derived any direct or indirect pecuniary bene4t from the alleged transactions. On the contrary, the statements of the account holders and the banking records reveal transactions only with the co-accused, namely, Aamir Khan, and there is no material indicating any 4nancial transaction or involvement of the present applicant. 4. He further submits that during the earlier hearings held on 02.07.2026 and 23.07.2026, the learned State Counsel had contended that the applicant had four criminal antecedents, however, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the prosecution itself, by 4ling a covering memo, clari4ed the said aspect. It is submitted that the four criminal cases referred to by the State, namely Crime No. 26/2017 registered at Police Station Khadgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Crime No. 25/2025 registered at Police 4 Station Mangchuwa, District Balod, Crime No. 122/2025 registered at Police Station Dondi Lohara, District Balod, and Crime No. 301/2025 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, pertain to the co-accused persons, including Harsh @ Hasnuddin, Hasan Khan @ Hasnuddin Khan, Aamir Khan @ Shiv Verma and others, and the present applicant is neither named as an accused in the FIRs nor has he been charge-sheeted in any of the said cases. Copies of the relevant FIRs and case status reports have also been placed on record through the covering memo, clearly demonstrating that the alleged criminal antecedents belong exclusively to the co- accused persons and not to the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.05.2026, the charge-sheet has been 4led before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been 4led before the competent Court. She also submits that the applicant is speci4cally named in the charge-sheet and that su)cient material has been collected during the course of investigation indicating his active involvement in the commission of the alleged o=ence. It is contended that the applicant, while working as a Relationship Manager at ICICI Bank, Balod Branch, abused his o)cial position and, in connivance with the co-accused persons, facilitated the processing and disbursement of agricultural loans under the guise of the NABARD Scheme, thereby causing wrongful 5 loss to the complainant and other villagers and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed a well-planned conspiracy involving fraudulent opening and operation of bank accounts and illegal withdrawal of loan amounts, and the applicant’s precise role and culpability are matters to be established during trial. She fairly submits that, in compliance with the directions of this Court, a covering memo has been 4led clarifying that the four criminal antecedents earlier pointed out do not pertain to the present applicant but relate to the co-accused persons, and the applicant is neither named as an accused nor charge-sheeted in those cases. However, it is argued that the absence of criminal antecedents by itself does not entitle the applicant to the grant of bail in view of the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged 4nancial fraud involving public money and multiple victims. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, though the allegations against the present applicant are that, while working as a Relationship Manager at ICICI Bank, Balod Branch, he acted in connivance with the co- accused persons in facilitating the fraudulent disbursement of agricultural loans under the NABARD Scheme, resulting in wrongful loss to the complainant and other villagers, the extent of his 6 involvement and culpability are matters which can be determined only during the course of trial. It is also signi4cant that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the prosecution itself, by 4ling a covering memo, has clari4ed that the four criminal antecedents earlier pointed out do not pertain to the present applicant but are exclusively against the co-accused persons, and that the applicant is neither named as an accused nor charge-sheeted in any of those cases. Thus, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further considering that the charge-sheet has already been 4led, he is in jail since 31.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Rakesh Kumar, involved in Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on 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 4le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4xed 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. 7 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 4xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su)cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 4xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 4xed 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 su)cient 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. 9. O)ce is directed to provide a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan