MICHAEL SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010295262026 2026:CGHC:38886
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7085 of 2026
Michael Sahu S/o Khemlal Sahu, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jaijaipur,
Police Station Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
KUMARI
Date:
2026.09.02
17:05:50
+0530
State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District- Sakti (C.G.)
PREETI
KUMARI
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
1.
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2024 registered at
Police Station – Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, in brief, it is alleged that the complainant,
2.
Balram Yadav, lodged a report alleging that, due to financial
constraints in running his cold drink shop, he was approached by the
present applicant and co-accused Harish Yadav, who assured him
that they could arrange a loan for him at a low rate of interest. It is
further alleged that, on such assurance, they got a current account and
a savings account opened in the complainant’s name with ICICI Bank,

2
Champa Branch, and retained the account-related documents and
ATM cards on the pretext that they would be handed over to him after
sanction of the loan. Subsequently, they returned the passbooks and
ATM cards to the complainant and assured him that the loan would
soon be sanctioned. Thereafter, upon visiting the bank, the
complainant came to know that transactions amounting to
Rs.4,21,22,801.62 had been carried out through his bank accounts
without his knowledge or consent. Alleging that the present applicant
and the co-accused had fraudulently operated his bank accounts
under the guise of arranging a loan, the complainant lodged the
present report.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted in this
case. It is further submitted that no amount has been transferred in the
bank account of the present applicant and he has not received any
money in his bank account. As per the prosecution case, the alleged
defrauded amount was deposited in Bank Account No.
177405500454 maintained with ICICI Bank, to which Mobile No.
8817389778 is linked, however, neither the said bank account nor the
aforesaid mobile number belongs to, or is operated or controlled by,
the present applicant, and there is no material on record to establish
any nexus of the applicant with the said account or transaction. He
also submits that the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents,
out of which in one case he has been acquitted and three cases are
pending and the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2026, and the
conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for
grant of bail.

3
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits
that from perusal of the record, it transpires that in the present case,
the applicant/accused, along with the other co-accused persons,
acting in concert and by adopting fraudulent means, carried out
transactions amounting to Rs.4,21,02,801.62/- in the current account
bearing No. 177405500454 of the complainant, and Rs.30,000/- in his
savings account bearing No. 177401505317, totalling
Rs.4,21,22,801.62/-. Thus, it appears that the applicant/accused, in
connivance with the other co-accused persons, committed fraud with
the complainant, by entering into a criminal conspiracy and acting in a
planned manner. Further, the applicant has four previous criminal
antecedents, out of which in one case he has been acquitted and three
cases are pending. As such, the bail application deserves to be
rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations
levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the
records available, it transpires that, in the present case, the
applicant/accused, along with the other co-accused persons, acting in
concert and by adopting fraudulent means, carried out transactions
amounting to Rs.4,21,02,801.62/- in the current account bearing No.
177405500454 of the complainant, and Rs.30,000/- in his savings
account bearing No. 177401505317, totalling Rs.4,21,22,801.62/-.
Thus, it appears that the applicant/accused, in connivance with the
other co-accused persons, committed fraud with the complainant, by
entering into a criminal conspiracy and acting in a planned manner.

4
Further, the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, out of
which in one case he has been acquitted and three cases are pending,
thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant – Michael Sahu
involved in Crime No. 82/2024 registered at Police Station – Jaijaipur,
District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, is rejected .
8. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to
proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice

Preeti