1 CGHC010265172026 2026:CGHC:34798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6351 of 2026 Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain S/o Lt. Shri Bhabhutmal Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o Room No. 29, 3rd Floor, 23/25 Kolbhat Lane, Police Station L.T. Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07/08/2026 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.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.07 18:45:17 +0530 2 2. The prosecution's case against applicant centers on a calculated breach of trust, forgery, and financial fraud totaling Rs. 45,88,416/- (forty-five lakhs eighty-eight thousand four hundred and sixteen rupees only) under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Acting as a tax consultant for the complainant (Sachindra) the applicant misappropriated entrusted KYC documents-including an Aadhar card, PAN card, and digital signature-to fraudulently register shell entities such as "Somvati Trading Agency Private Company" and "Artech Solution" without the complainant's knowledge. Using these fictitious companies and forged credentials, applicant systematically procured massive unauthorized loans from various institutions, including Tata Capital, ICICI Bank, ECL Finance, and Dhani Loans, even going so far as to forge the signature of the complainant's wife and use a stranger's photograph for guarantor documentation, with an intention of financial fraud. Thereafter FIR has been registered. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Complainant Shachindra Deshmukh is a partner in P.M. Construction along with his wife, and on 20.11.2017 transaction amounting to Rs.9,08,482/- has been carried out between P.M. Construction company and Artech Solutions. Where money has been transferred from Complainant's Company (P.M. Construction) to Artech Solutions which shows that the 3 complainant was well aware about the company Artech Solution and as he was doing financial transactions with the same. The complainant is partner in Artech Solutions and director in Somvatti company, and profits, remuneration and all benefits are enjoyed by the complainant and for which complainant has paid income tax. The registration of company and GST registration, requires verification at every step including Aadhar Card verification which can only be done through biomatrices and faking the whole process without complainant's knowledge is not possible. If the prosecution case is taken as it is, the complainant got to know about the fraudulent companies through GST notice received to him in his residential address, which clearly shows he has received other communications also, regarding the registration of GST and registration of firm, as the point of contact was his residential home. The applicant has 1 criminal antecedent under the PC Act which is pending. The applicant is in jail since 16.2.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 16.7.2026, the concerned I.O. has also filed his affidavit. However, he submits that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, applicant has 1 criminal antecedent registered against him under the PC Act and the same is pending, which is mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since 16.2.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain, involved in Crime No.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC, 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed 5 against them 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 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. (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 applicants are 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 them 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve