1 CGHC010335882026 2026:CGHC:38619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8056 of 2026 Pravin Kumar Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Ward No. 27, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Geedam, District- Dantewada, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri SS Baghel, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.65/2025 registered at Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 409 (2) of the IPC and under Section 66 (D) of the IT Act. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.09.01 20:18:42 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant, Baman Ram Kashyap, who is working as a Teacher at the Government Middle School, Phulpad, P.S. Kuakonda, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), lodged a written report on 10.07.2025 at P.S. Geedam alleging, inter alia, that a joint agricultural loan account had been opened in the name of the complainant and his wife, Smt. Soni Kashyap, at the Geedam Branch of Axis Bank; that an agricultural loan of Rs. 14,39,762/- was sanctioned and credited to the said account on 16.02.2024; that a savings bank account bearing No.933010072803737 was also opened in the complainant's name, which was operated with the assistance of the applicant, who was working as a Field Officer of the said bank; on the pretext of activating the ATM card and mobile banking facility, the applicant is alleged to have retained the ATM card and taken the mobile number of the complainant, and thereafter, between February and March 2024, is alleged to have carried out ATM and IMPS transactions, withdrawing approximately Rs. 9,50,000/- from the said savings account without authorization; that a further sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- is alleged to have been taken in cash directly from the complainant on the pretext of crediting it to the loan account. On the strength of the said report, an FIR was lodged against the applicant, after lapse of more than 15 months from the last date of the alleged transactions, which got registered as Crime No. 65/2025 under Sections 420 and 409 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and, upon completion of investigation, 3 Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was subsequently added. The applicant was arrested on 26.05.2026, and the Charge-sheet has since been filed before the concerned Court. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. The complainant is a well- educated and literate person, working as Teacher at the Government Middle School, Phulpad, P.S. Kuakonda, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), and it is highly improbable and contrary to ordinary human conduct that such an educated and literate person, who is fully conversant with banking operations, would hand over his ATM card and disclose his confidential mobile/banking credentials to another person and thereafter permit continued, unauthorized access to his account over several months without raising any protest or objection. The very foundation of the prosecution case is, therefore, inherently improbable and requires to be tested at trial, and cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny bail. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 15 months in lodging the FIR, as the alleged transactions having admittedly taken place between 16.02.2024 and 22.03.2024, whereas the report was lodged only on 10.07.2025. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 26.5.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, there is delay of more than 15 months in lodging the FIR, as the alleged transactions had taken place between 16.02.2024 and 22.03.2024, whereas the report was lodged only on 10.07.2025, the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, which is mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since 26.5.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. Accordingly, the Application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Pravin Kumar Sharma, involved in Crime No.65/2025 registered at Police Station Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 409 (2) of the IPC and under Section 66 (D) of the IT Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve