PRAVIN KUMAR SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

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.
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.09.01
20:18:42
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

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