HORI LAL PANKAJ vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
GOURI
MUDALIAR

CGHC010346692026 2026:CGHC:46329
Digitally signed
by GOURI
MUDALIAR
Date: 2026.11.03
12:51:54 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1561 of 2026
Hori Lal Pankaj S/o Lalit Pankaj Aged About 45 Years R/o Housing
Board Colony, Vidhan Sabha, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station - Saraswati
Nagar, Distt. Raipur Commissionerate Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Aman Guru, Advocate.
For
: Shri Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy.G.A.
Respondent/State
For complainant : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
02/11/2026
1. The applicant has preferred the first anticipatory bail application
under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short 'BNSS, 2023') for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending

2
his arrest in connection with Crime No.169/2026, registered at
Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur for the alleged offences
under Sections 318 (4) & 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on a written complaint made
by complainant Sachin Kumar Manikpuri, a case under
Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was
registered against the applicant and co-accused Jitesh Kumar
Chandrakar. The allegation against the applicant is that he
along with Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar fraudulently obtained a
loan of Rs.5,50,000/- and a mobile loan of Rs.40,000/-from
Bandhan Bank between 3/11/2025 and 1/12/2025 in the name
of complainant without his knowledge. Hence, apprehending
his arrest in the offence registered at Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, Raipur the present anticipatory bail application has
been filed by the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
offence. The allegation levelled in the FIR do not constitute any
offence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. All the
documentary formalities with the bank has been completed by
the co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar and in none of the
documents the name of the present applicant is reflected. It is
only an oral allegation of the complainant that he along with co-
accused Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar committed the offence. The
report has been lodged with malafide intention just to rope the

3
present applicant in a false case. The allegations made in the
FIR are general and vague in nature. There is delay of about 8
months in lodging the FIR. The complainant himself admitted
that he himself on his own will signed the documents before the
bank and the loan amount was also deposited by the bank in
his own personal account and he himself transferred and
withdrawn the amount. The statement of complainant was also
recorded in the offence of Crime No.101/2026 registered at
Police Station Pandri, Raipur which shows that the complainant
has the malafide intention against the applicant to rope in a
false case. He would further submit that in the offence of Crime
No.101/2026 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur the
applicant has been released on regular bail by the coordinate
bench of this Court vide order dated 23/07/2026 passed in
MCRC No.6617/2026. He would also submit that though the
applicant is having criminal antecedents which was of the
offence of the year 2017 and 2023 but he has been acquitted in
both these offences, therefore the applicant may be enlarged
on anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant and would submit that the loan amount has been
credited in the bank account of co-accused Jitesh Kumar
Chandrakar and both the accused persons have withdrawn the
amount from the bank account fraudulently and thereby

4
cheated the complainant. Although the documentary formalities
have been completed by the co-accused Jitesh Kumar
Chandrakar but in the FIR itself the complainant have raised
allegation against the present applicant also that both the
accused persons have committed the offence and the co-
accused Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar shown the present applicant
to be the higher officer of the bank. Even if the applicant has
been released on regular bail in Crime No.101/2026 registered
at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, in view of the allegations
levelled in the present FIR, he is not entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail as he is also having criminal antecedents with
respect to similar nature of offence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector would also submit
that the applicant along with co-accused Jitesh Kumar
Chandrakar has cheated him and the anticipatory bail
application of co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar in the
present FIR has been rejected by this Court vide order dated
03/09/2026 passed in MCRCA No.1452/2026. In the FIR the
allegation against the present applicant is also similar to that of
the allegation against the co-accused Jitesh Kumar
Chandrakar, therefore his anticipatory bail application is also
liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.

5
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, particularly considering the allegations made by the
complainant in the FIR against the present applicant and the
co-accused Jitesh Kumar Chandrakar, the manner in which the
accused persons have allegedly cheated the complainant and
that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused Jitesh
Kumar Chandrakar has been rejected by this Court vide order
dated 03/09/2026 in MCRCA No.1452/2026 and further that
the criminal antecedents of the applicant though he has been
acquitted in the offence of the year 2017 and 2023, this Court
is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
Hori Lal Pankaj is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge

gouri