1 CGHC010272672026 2026:CGHC:37631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6630 of 2026 Jayanto Haldar S/o Sushen Haldar Aged About 28 Years R/o Sori Para, Baniyagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Assem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 81/2026, registered at Police Station Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) for the o6ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the period from 22.09.2024 to 22.03.2026, the present applicant, along with co- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 accused Sukhdar Poyam, allegedly induced the complainants, namely, Basman Netam, Rajkumar Markam, Santuram Poyam, Laikram Sodhi, Khemsingh Netam, Naval Sori and other persons, by assuring them that they would be provided motorcycles or scooters of their choice at a good discount through Sah Auto Service, Baniyagaon. It is alleged that cash amounts of Rs.67,000/-, Rs.65,000/-, Rs.75,000/-, Rs.80,000/-, Rs.65,000/- and Rs.85,000/- respectively were obtained from them and their Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, bank passbooks and passport-size photographs were also collected in the name of vehicle registration. Thereafter, the motorcycles and scooters chosen by them were allegedly ?nanced in their names through the ?nance company. The complainants came to know about the said ?nancing when they received information from the ?nance company regarding non- payment of instalments. As per the police statements available in the case-diary, the applicant had also allegedly received cash amounts from Mahru Ram Netam, Mannu Netam, Dharam Netam and Anil Netam and got vehicles ?nanced in their names. It is further alleged that the applicant had similarly cheated several other persons, in respect of which investigation is still going on. Thus, according to the prosecution, the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, induced persons residing in rural areas by o6ering vehicles at cheaper rates, obtained cash amounts from them and thereafter got the vehicles ?nanced in their names while retaining the amount so received. Upon such, basis, the aforesaid o6ences were registered against the accused persons. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely because he was working as a Business Executive engaged in processing vehicle ?nance applications. He further submits that the applicant was working with AU Small Finance Bank/its ?nancing channel and was authorized to process vehicle ?nance proposals, and the acts attributed to him, namely obtaining KYC documents, uploading Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, bank passbook, live photograph and conducting biometric veri?cation, were performed by him in the ordinary course of processing vehicle ?nance applications. He further submits that there is no speci?c allegation against the applicant that he had personally accepted any money from the complainants and there is no material available on record to show that he obtained any wrongful gain from the ?nance process. He further submits that the vehicles were ?nanced only after independent veri?cation, including Aadhaar authentication, live photograph, biometric/thumb veri?cation, OTP veri?cation, telephonic con?rmation from the customer and ?nal digital approval by the competent authority, followed by execution of the arrangement letter/agreement by the purchaser. It is further submitted that the applicant had neither the authority nor the technical capability to bypass the mandatory approval and digital veri?cation process prescribed by the ?nance company. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to produce any material showing that the applicant personally misappropriated any amount allegedly paid by the complainants and there is no bank transaction, 4 recovery or documentary evidence to establish that the applicant received any part of the alleged consideration. It is further submitted that the case is primarily based upon documentary evidence and the relevant documents are already in possession of, or can independently be collected by, the investigating agency and, therefore, further custodial detention of the applicant is not required. He further submits that even according to the prosecution case, the complainants received possession of the motorcycles/scooters ?nanced in their names and the dispute essentially relates to the manner of ?nancing and repayment of loan instalments, which requires appreciation of evidence during trial. He further submits that the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation, has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 04.06.2026 and the investigation is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as the case involves numerous witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused, induced several persons by promising to provide them motorcycles and scooters at discounted prices and obtained cash amounts from them. It is further submitted that the applicant allegedly got the vehicles ?nanced in the names of the complainants and other persons, who subsequently came to know about the same when they received information regarding non- payment of installments from the ?nance company. He further 5 submits that investigation in the present case is still pending and as per the case-diary, investigation is also being conducted regarding several other persons who are alleged to have been similarly cheated. However, he does not dispute the submission that the applicant has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations and the fact that investigation is still pending, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 04.06.2026 and further considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was working as a Business Executive for processing vehicle ?nance applications and the investigation in the present case is primarily based upon documentary evidence, coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has not yet been ?led and the investigation may take some more time for its conclusion, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Jayanto Haldar, involved in Crime No. 81/2026, registered at Police Station Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) for the o6ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, be released 6 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 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such 7 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal