1 2026:CGHC:16187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1116 of 2026 Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramchandra Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Amravati Chauraha, Dhamhapur, Thana- Vindhyanchal, Distt.- Mirzapur (U.P.) At Present R/o. Village - Jarvahi, Chowki - Mohara, Thana- Dongargarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Doundilohara, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. MCRC No. 2709 of 2026 Rahul Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramchandra Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Amravati Chauraha Ghamhapur Thana Vindhyanchal Ditt- Mirzapur (U.P.) At Present R/o Village- Jarvahi Police Chowki - Mohara Thana- Dongargarh Distt- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Rajahra Distt- Balod (C.G.) --- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. Since the above two bail applications arise out of the same incident, though registered at different police stations within the same district and as the applicant in both the applications is the same, albeit with different crime numbers, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The applicant has preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.122/2025 and Crime No.301/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station Doundilohara and Police Station- Rajhara, respectively, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(4), 111, 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, upon a combined perusal of the records of both the cases, it prima facie emerges that offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(4), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have been registered against the accused, wherein the co-accused Hasmuddin and Aamir Khan, in connivance with the present applicant Rahul Kumar Yadav, allegedly impersonated themselves as officials of NABARD and, under the pretext of facilitating government schemes such as fencing, fisheries, KCC loan, car loan and tractor loan, induced innocent villagers to hand over their loan documents, Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, Kisan booklets and 3 photographs and thereafter, pursuant to a well-planned criminal conspiracy, dishonestly misappropriated and siphoned off funds from their bank accounts. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Hasmuddin, the involvement of the present applicant was revealed and upon his interrogation, he disclosed that he, along with the co-accused, visited UCO Bank, Kusumkasa and other places for facilitating the transfer of defrauded amount from the account of villagers to different bank accounts, including his own Punjab National Bank account and also accompanied the co-accused to village Rengadabri and nearby areas to establish contact with prospective victims, while co-accused Aamir Khan is alleged to have actively operated the bank accounts of the victims and transferred the defrauded amounts to the account of the present applicant. The total amount involved in both the cases is approximately ₹1.40 crores, and it is further alleged that the applicant utilized part of the said defrauded amount by pledging about 40 grams of gold in his own name to obtain a loan of ₹2,92,500/- from Mudhur Finance Bank, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, thereby indicating his active participation and involvement in the commission of the offence, and the overall material on record prima facie discloses that the matter is of serious nature and that the applicant is also involved in another criminal case of similar nature. As such, aforementioned offences were registered against the applicant in both cases. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present cases, his name does not find place in the FIR, written report or in the 4 statements of the complainants and he has never met the complainants nor participated in the alleged transactions. The prosecution story itself shows considerable and unexplained delay in lodging the reports despite the alleged incidents spanning several months, which creates serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations. It is further submitted that the implication of the applicant is solely based on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which have no independent corroboration in the form of direct or cogent evidence and even the seizure of the mobile phone allegedly used for transactions does not establish any nexus of the applicant with the commission of the offence, that the investigation in both the cases is complete and charge-sheets have already been filed, yet no direct evidence has been collected against the applicant except alleging his relationship with the absconding co-accused Aamir Khan, which by itself cannot be a ground for his implication. It is also contended that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, except the present cases which have arisen on the basis of the same set of allegations and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence further, the applicant is in custody since 29.09.2025, and in the second case he has been formally arrested on 05.01.2026, and has already undergone substantial pre-trial detention, while the trial, considering the bulky charge-sheet, is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has not played any active or direct role in the alleged offence and at the most, is alleged to have acted under the instructions of co-accused without knowledge of the alleged fraud and being the sole earning member of his family, 5 his continued detention would cause irreparable hardship, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present cases pertain to serious economic offences involving well-planned fraud committed against innocent villagers by impersonating as government officials, wherein a substantial amount of money has been siphoned off. The applicant is an active participant in the crime as the defrauded amount was transferred to his bank account and he has also utilized the said amount for obtaining loan by pledging gold, his involvement has surfaced during investigation on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused and other collected material. Looking to the gravity and nature of the offence, his role and the possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the delay in lodging of the FIRs, inasmuch as in one case there is an inordinate delay of about 11 months and in the other case also there is a delay of about 2 months in reporting the incident, which creates a doubt regarding the prosecution version, and further considering that the implication of the present applicant appears to be based primarily on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons without there being any independent and cogent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence, coupled with the fact that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and no 6 direct evidence has been collected against the applicant and also taking into account that the applicant is in custody for a considerable period and the trial is likely to take substantial time for its conclusion, this Court is inclined to allow the bail applications, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Rahul Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No.122/2025 and Crime No.301/2025 respectively, registered at Police Station Doundilohara and Police Station- Rajhara, respectively, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 317(4), 111, 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in each case 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 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 7 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. 10. 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 Kunal