1 CGHC010295262026 2026:CGHC:38886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7085 of 2026 Michael Sahu S/o Khemlal Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jaijaipur, Police Station Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2024 registered at Police Station – Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, it is alleged that the complainant, Balram Yadav, lodged a report alleging that, due to financial constraints in running his cold drink shop, he was approached by the present applicant and co-accused Harish Yadav, who assured him that they could arrange a loan for him at a low rate of interest. It is further alleged that, on such assurance, they got a current account and a savings account opened in the complainant’s name with ICICI Bank, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.09.02 17:05:50 +0530 2 Champa Branch, and retained the account-related documents and ATM cards on the pretext that they would be handed over to him after sanction of the loan. Subsequently, they returned the passbooks and ATM cards to the complainant and assured him that the loan would soon be sanctioned. Thereafter, upon visiting the bank, the complainant came to know that transactions amounting to Rs.4,21,22,801.62 had been carried out through his bank accounts without his knowledge or consent. Alleging that the present applicant and the co-accused had fraudulently operated his bank accounts under the guise of arranging a loan, the complainant lodged the present report. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. It is further submitted that no amount has been transferred in the bank account of the present applicant and he has not received any money in his bank account. As per the prosecution case, the alleged defrauded amount was deposited in Bank Account No. 177405500454 maintained with ICICI Bank, to which Mobile No. 8817389778 is linked, however, neither the said bank account nor the aforesaid mobile number belongs to, or is operated or controlled by, the present applicant, and there is no material on record to establish any nexus of the applicant with the said account or transaction. He also submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which in one case he has been acquitted and three cases are pending and the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2026, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that from perusal of the record, it transpires that in the present case, the applicant/accused, along with the other co-accused persons, acting in concert and by adopting fraudulent means, carried out transactions amounting to Rs.4,21,02,801.62/- in the current account bearing No. 177405500454 of the complainant, and Rs.30,000/- in his savings account bearing No. 177401505317, totalling Rs.4,21,22,801.62/-. Thus, it appears that the applicant/accused, in connivance with the other co-accused persons, committed fraud with the complainant, by entering into a criminal conspiracy and acting in a planned manner. Further, the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which in one case he has been acquitted and three cases are pending. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available, it transpires that, in the present case, the applicant/accused, along with the other co-accused persons, acting in concert and by adopting fraudulent means, carried out transactions amounting to Rs.4,21,02,801.62/- in the current account bearing No. 177405500454 of the complainant, and Rs.30,000/- in his savings account bearing No. 177401505317, totalling Rs.4,21,22,801.62/-. Thus, it appears that the applicant/accused, in connivance with the other co-accused persons, committed fraud with the complainant, by entering into a criminal conspiracy and acting in a planned manner. 4 Further, the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of which in one case he has been acquitted and three cases are pending, thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Michael Sahu involved in Crime No. 82/2024 registered at Police Station – Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti