1 CGHC010333072026 2026:CGHC:38365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1401 of 2026 Komal Dewangan S/o Shri Lukesh Dewangan Aged About 18 Years R/o Bakhrupara Distt. Narayanpur CG ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Narayanpur District Narayanpur CG (As Per FIR) .... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 31.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 2nd anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.01 11:35:58 +0530 2 No.50/2026, registered at Police Station – Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS. Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in MCRCA No.1243/2026. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Hironda Dewangan lodged a written report at Police Station Narayanpur on 15.05.2026 stating that she was running a women’s self-help group at Narayanpur and maintained a bank account with Punjab National Bank, which was linked to mobile number 9406160060 and that an amount of Rs.5,31,208/- was lying in the said account. Upon finding that the entire amount had been withdrawn from her account, she made enquiries with the bank and learnt that the amount had been transferred through UPI transactions to various accounts. On further enquiry, she suspected the son of her tenant, who used her mobile phone for playing games with her children and allegedly, without her knowledge, activated her UPI facility and transferred the amount to several accounts, thereafter spending the entire amount and fleeing from the place. Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered against the Applicant for the offences 3 punishable under the aforementioned Sections. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no prima facie material connecting him with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the allegation that the Applicant, who is a juvenile aged about 18 years and studying at Atmanand School, could have accessed the complainant’s mobile phone without her knowledge, altered the UPI settings and transferred the amount lying in her bank account is inherently doubtful, particularly as a mobile phone contains personal and confidential information and ordinarily cannot be accessed or operated by another person without the owner’s knowledge. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that an amount of approximately Rs.5,31,000/- has been fraudulently transferred from the complainant’s bank account through UPI transactions and that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations levelled against the Applicant that an amount of approximately Rs.5,31,000/- was fraudulently transferred from the complainant’s bank account through UPI transactions, further considering the fact that investigation is still going on and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Komal Dewangan, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.50/2026, registered at Police Station – Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya