Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:17150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2876 of 2025 Parmatma Ram Chauhan S/o Shivcharan Chauhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Amdala, Post And Police Station- Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Police Station- Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that a written complaint has been 2 lodged by the complainant Satyanarayan Chauhan on 26.02.2025 before the concerned police station and alleged therein that the accused gave assurance for providing loan from bank. Therefore, he has taken Aadhar Card, PAN Card and Bank Passbook of the complainant and in his presence, applied for the loan through online process and after some days, when the complainant asked about his loan from the accused, who has denied for approval of loan and assigned the reason that his CIBIL is poor, therefore, loan cannot be sanctioned. After passing of 02-03 months, when the private bank namely, Bharat Finances Indulsund Bank, Banch - Lakhanpur came to his house, whereby, it came into his knowledge that Rs. 1,00,000/- has been sanctioned in his account which has also been withdrawn but the loan installment has not been paid. Thereafter, on an inquiry, it came into their knowledge that the complainant's ATM has been taken by the accused from the post-man and the mobile number of the complainant has been used to link it with the bank account and thereafter, money has been withdrawn by the applicant and thereby, committed cheating with the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the applicant and the complainant are both brother in relation and are living in a house adjacent to each other and the complainant has itself given his SIM Card and Mobile Number to the present applicant and therefore, the approval and transaction of loan is very well known by the complainant. The complainant has processed online through the Bank OfÏcer for the purpose of loan 3 and therefore, the allegation of cheating is false and fabricated and the applicant is in jail since 27.02.2025 and he is not having any antecedent/criminal case pending against him. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the accused, Paramatma, allegedly obtained complainant/Satyanarayan's identity documents, including his Aadhaar card, PAN card, and bank passbook, under the guise of facilitating a ₹30,000/- bank loan. When complainant inquired about the loan status, applicant claimed that the loan couldn't be approved due to complainant’s poor credit score. However, complainant later discovered that a loan of ₹1 lakh had been sanctioned in his name from Bharat Finance Indusnd Bank, Lakhanpur branch. Upon reviewing his bank statement, he found that the loan was approved on May 8, 2024, at 12:41 PM, and the entire amount was withdrawn from the account between May 8, 2024 (2:43 PM) and May 10, 2024 (7:39 AM), leaving the account with zero balance. When complainant confronted Paramatma, he allegedly admitted to obtaining complainant’s ATM card through a postman, activating it using complainant’s linked mobile number, and withdrawing the entire loan amount without returning it. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the fact and circumstance of the case, nature and 4 gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.02.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent further the applicant and the complainant both are brother in relation and are living in a house adjacent to each other and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Let the bail application of the applicant namely- Parmatma Ram Chauhan, involved in Crime No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal