HASANUDDIN ALIAS HASAN SHEIKH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010330312026 2026:CGHC:38335

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7965 of 2026
Hasanuddin Alias Hasan Sheikh S/o Sheikh Kamaruddin Aged About 38
Years R/o Bakalitola Police Station Doundilohara District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station-
Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 318(4), 111(1), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant
along with the co-accused persons, in furtherance of a conspiracy,
allegedly cheated the villagers and other persons and obtained a
total amount of Rs.35,87,000/- by collecting their loan-related
documents, including Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, Kisan Kitab
Cards and photographs, on the pretext of arranging wire fencing,
fish farming, KCC loans, car loans and tractor loans under
NABARD schemes. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the
aforesaid acts, the applicant and the co-accused persons
defrauded the villagers and other persons, pursuant to which the
present case was registered and the applicant was arrested.
Hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the villagers were fully aware of the terms and
conditions of the NABARD schemes and had voluntarily availed the
respective loan facilities. He further submits that the loan amounts
were directly credited by the concerned bank into the respective
bank accounts of the villagers and the applicant had no access to or
control over such accounts or the loan amounts so disbursed. It is
contended that the applicant’s role was limited to that of a
commission agent and he had no involvement in the alleged
misappropriation or fraudulent withdrawal of the loan amounts. He
also submits that the villagers had derived benefits from the
concerned schemes but, subsequently, when the time came for
repayment of the loan amounts, they were unwilling to repay the

3
same and the applicant has been implicated in the present case on
such account. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has
already been filed and the applicant has remained in custody for a
considerable period. He submits that the applicant is engaged in the
business of catering and his entire family is dependent upon his
income. It is also pointed out that the co-accused namely, Rakesh
Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order
dated 07.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.5847/2026. With regard to
the criminal antecedents of the applicant, learned counsel submits
that he has four antecedents, out of which he has been granted bail
in two cases, has been acquitted in one case, and only one case is
presently pending trial. He also submits that the present applicant
is in jail since 20.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for
its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant
on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the
allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as he is
alleged to have acted in conspiracy with the co-accused persons
and to have induced the villagers and other persons to part with
their documents and thereby caused a financial loss of
approximately Rs.35,87,000/- under the pretext of providing various
loan and subsidy benefits under NABARD schemes. It is further
submitted that the applicant cannot seek parity with the co-accused
who was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2026

4
passed in MCRC No.5847/2026, as the said co-accused had no
criminal antecedents, whereas the present applicant has four
criminal antecedents. He further submits that the applicant’s
antecedents demonstrate his involvement in criminal cases, out of
which one case is still pending trial, and therefore his conduct and
antecedents are required to be taken into consideration while
considering the prayer for bail. Hence, he prays for rejection of the
bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the
material available on record, though the allegation against the
applicant is that he, along with the co-accused persons, conspired
to defraud the villagers and other persons by obtaining their
documents on the pretext of arranging various loans and benefits
under NABARD schemes, resulting in an alleged financial loss of
Rs.35,87,000/-, but considering the fact that the charge-sheet has
already been filed, the present applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026,
and the loan amounts were allegedly disbursed directly into the
respective bank accounts of the beneficiaries, this Court finds that
further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. The
applicant has explained his four criminal antecedents, wherein he
has been granted bail in two cases, acquitted in one case, and only
one case is presently pending trial. It is also relevant that the co-

5
accused namely, Rakesh Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail
by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2026 passed in MCRC
No.5847/2026. Though the said co-accused had no criminal
antecedents, the present applicant’s antecedents, as explained
above. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the
Applicant – Hasanuddin Alias Hasan Sheikh , involved in Crime
No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District Balod,
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111(1),
316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released
on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties 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

6
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 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.
8. 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
Rahul Dewangan