1 CGHC010341252026 2026:CGHC:41761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8182 of 2026 Vinay Kumar Prasad S/o Shri Satendra Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Chand Parsa, Tehsil And Police Station Sahnpara, District Siwan (Bihar), Presently R/o 145 M.G.S., Bose Road, Kolkata (West Bengal) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate. ( HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY ) Order on Board 25/09/2026 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. 252/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Shashikant Prasad, who runs business in Jagdalpur, received phone call on Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.26 15:24:16 +0530 2 05.06.2024 from different phone number for facilitating loan from Tata Capital Company. Thereafter, the agent visited the shop of the complainant/informant. Subsequently, the complainant handed over KYC documents including PAN Card, Aadhar Card and ITR details along with cancelled cheques. It is alleged that the present applicant used magic pen to manipulate the cancelled cheque and presented it indicating that a sum of Rs.95,500/- and withdrew the said amount from the concerned Bank. When the complainant got message with regard to withdrawal of said amount, he enquired and thereafter lodged F.I.R. against the present applicant/accused. Resultantly, the aforesaid offences were registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the amount received through cheque from the complainant has already been refunded. In this regard, he has placed on record, the affidavit of the complainant along with Demand Draft. He would submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 30.03.2026 and further, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some considerable time. Therefore, he would pray that the bail application may be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and does not dispute the facts that the charge-sheet has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 30.03.2026 and the Bank Demand Draft along with affidavit of the complainant have been placed on record. He would further submit that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the fact that the applicant has already refunded the amount through Bank Demand Draft, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 30.03.2026 and that, he has no criminal antecedent and further conclusion of trial may take some considerable time, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani