1 CGHC010338792026 2026:CGHC:39104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1452 of 2026 Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Khagesh Chandrakar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Aodaan, P. S. - Palari, District - Baloda Bazar (C.G.) Current Address - B S G P Colony, Room No 04 Block No. 02 Daldal Sheoni, P. S. - Saraswatinagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Correctly Mentioned) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Saraswatinagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. For Objector : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 03/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.169/2026, registered at Police Station Saraswati KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.09.07 17:52:46 +0530 2 Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318 (4) & 3 (5) of the BNS. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on written complaint made by complainant Sachin Kumar Manikpuri, a case under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS was registered against the applicant and co-accused. The applicant is accused of fraudulently obtaining a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- and a mobile loan of Rs.40,000/- from Bandhan Bank between 3/11/2025 and 1/12/2025 in the name of complainant without his knowledge. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence under Section 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. The report has been lodged with malafide intention just to rope the present applicant in a false case. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are general and vague in nature. The allegations do not reveal any commission of offence. There is delay of 9 months and 12 days in lodging the FIR. The complainant himself admitted that he himself on his own will signed the documents before the bank and the loan amount was also deposited by the bank in his own personal account and he himself transferred and withdrawn the amount. The complainant is the same person who gave the statement in the other FIR in which this Court granted bail to the applicant in Crime No 101/2026, P.S - Pandri Raipur, which shows 3 the malafide intention of the complainant to rope the applicant in a false case. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the Objector opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the loan amount has been credited in the account of the present applicant and that the applicant has 3 criminal antecedents. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering that the loan amount has been credited in the account of the present applicant, the applicant has 3 criminal antecedents, and he seems to be a habitual offender, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar, involved in Crime No.169/2026, registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318 (4) & 3 (5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Barve