1 CGHC010330312026 2026:CGHC:38335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7965 of 2026 Hasanuddin Alias Hasan Sheikh S/o Sheikh Kamaruddin Aged About 38 Years R/o Bakalitola Police Station Doundilohara District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... 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 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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 offence 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 case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant along with the co-accused persons, in furtherance of a conspiracy, allegedly cheated the villagers and other persons and obtained a total amount of Rs.35,87,000/- by collecting their loan-related documents, including Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, Kisan Kitab Cards and photographs, on the pretext of arranging wire fencing, fish farming, KCC loans, car loans and tractor loans under NABARD schemes. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the aforesaid acts, the applicant and the co-accused persons defrauded the villagers and other persons, pursuant to which the present case was registered and the applicant was arrested. 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 submitted that the villagers were fully aware of the terms and conditions of the NABARD schemes and had voluntarily availed the respective loan facilities. He further submits that the loan amounts were directly credited by the concerned bank into the respective bank accounts of the villagers and the applicant had no access to or control over such accounts or the loan amounts so disbursed. It is contended that the applicant’s role was limited to that of a commission agent and he had no involvement in the alleged misappropriation or fraudulent withdrawal of the loan amounts. He also submits that the villagers had derived benefits from the concerned schemes but, subsequently, when the time came for repayment of the loan amounts, they were unwilling to repay the 3 same and the applicant has been implicated in the present case on such account. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period. He submits that the applicant is engaged in the business of catering and his entire family is dependent upon his income. It is also pointed out that the co-accused namely, Rakesh Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.5847/2026. With regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, learned counsel submits that he has four antecedents, out of which he has been granted bail in two cases, has been acquitted in one case, and only one case is presently pending trial. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as he is alleged to have acted in conspiracy with the co-accused persons and to have induced the villagers and other persons to part with their documents and thereby caused a financial loss of approximately Rs.35,87,000/- under the pretext of providing various loan and subsidy benefits under NABARD schemes. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot seek parity with the co-accused who was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2026 4 passed in MCRC No.5847/2026, as the said co-accused had no criminal antecedents, whereas the present applicant has four criminal antecedents. He further submits that the applicant’s antecedents demonstrate his involvement in criminal cases, out of which one case is still pending trial, and therefore his conduct and antecedents are required to be taken into consideration while considering the prayer for bail. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, though the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with the co-accused persons, conspired to defraud the villagers and other persons by obtaining their documents on the pretext of arranging various loans and benefits under NABARD schemes, resulting in an alleged financial loss of Rs.35,87,000/-, but considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the present applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026, and the loan amounts were allegedly disbursed directly into the respective bank accounts of the beneficiaries, this Court finds that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. The applicant has explained his four criminal antecedents, wherein he has been granted bail in two cases, acquitted in one case, and only one case is presently pending trial. It is also relevant that the co- 5 accused namely, Rakesh Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.5847/2026. Though the said co-accused had no criminal antecedents, the present applicant’s antecedents, as explained above. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Hasanuddin Alias Hasan Sheikh, involved in Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence 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 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 6 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 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan