1 CGHC010327982026 2026:CGHC:37846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1389 of 2026 Shashank Kumar Singh S/o Vipin Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years Krishna Nagar, Korba Outpost Manikpur, Police Station Kotwali District- Korba(C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Balco District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 24.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.474/2026, registered at Police Station – Balco District- VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.25 10:43:37 +0530 2 Korba (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 31.07.2026, the complainant Seema Toppo lodged written report at Police Station, Balco, alleging therein that for purchasing land, she was requirement of loan and therefore on 01.04.2025, the complainant obtained loan of Rs. 3,06,545/-from Bajaj Finance Company, Korba, through agent Shanshank Singh (applicant) and the loan amount of Rs. 2,81,790 (after deducting processing charge) was transferred in her SBI account, but on next day, she has arranged money for purchasing land, therefore she asked the applicant for closing loan account and the applicant given assurance for closing the loan account subject to transfer of loan amount in his account & for payment of interest of one month and as per the instruction of the applicant, the complainant has transferred loan amount in the account of applicant, but the applicant has not closed the loan account and he used to deposit the EMI of Rs. 8782 from June, 2025 to June, 2026, but thereafter he has not deposited the EMI, therefore the EMI with penalty was deducted from the account of complainant. The applicant had given for closing the loan account, but he has not closed the loan account of the complainant and thereby he has cheated the complainant. On the basis of said complaint, the offence U/s 318(4) of BNS has been registered against the applicant. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant was an agent of Bajaj Finance Company and, at the request of the complainant, processed her loan application, after completion of the requisite formalities, pursuant to which the loan amount was sanctioned and transferred to the bank account of the complainant. It is further submitted that subsequently, at the request of the complainant, the applicant was asked to cancel the loan, but since the loan amount had already been disbursed, the applicant expressed his inability to cancel the same. Learned counsel further submits that, at the request of the complainant herself, the loan amount was transferred to the applicant’s account with the understanding that the applicant would utilize the amount for his requirements and repay the same by depositing the monthly EMIs, which he duly paid till June, 2026; however, due to financial constraints, he could not deposit the EMI for July, 2026, resulting in deduction of the said EMI from the complainant’s account. It is submitted that the applicant had never given any assurance to the complainant regarding closure of the loan and that the complainant was aware from the very beginning that the applicant would utilize the loan amount and repay the same through EMIs. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and arises out of a monetary transaction relating to repayment of the loan, and the criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a means of exerting 4 pressure for recovery of a disputed amount. The applicant has not committed any cheating or fraud, the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against him, and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation as the relevant evidence is documentary and electronic in nature and can be obtained and verified from the concerned bank accounts and transaction records. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Company, obtained Rs.2,81,790/- from the complainant’s account on the assurance of closing her loan account, but failed to do so and subsequently stopped depositing the EMIs, resulting in deduction of the EMI with penalty from the complainant’s account. Considering the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the specific allegation of cheating against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the specific allegation that the applicant, being an agent of Bajaj Finance Company, obtained an amount of Rs.2,81,790/- from the complainant on the assurance that he would close her loan 5 account, but failed to do so and thereafter stopped depositing the monthly EMIs, resulting in deduction of the EMI along with penalty from the complainant’s account, and further considering the specific role attributed to the applicant and the nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Shashank Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No.474/2026, registered at Police Station – Balco District- Korba (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav