Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 201/2025 registered at Police Station Nandini for alleged digital fraud and financial misappropriation
Source reference: p. 1-2The prosecution alleged that unknown persons manipulated the 'Bhuiya' software of the Tehsil Ahiwara and used a Patwari's ID to create forged land records (Rin Pustika)
Source reference: p. 2Using these forged documents, a loan was sanctioned by the State Bank of India in the name of the applicant.
Source reference: p. 2The Tahsildar reported the matter upon discovering that the loan amount had been misappropriated
Source reference: p. 2The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on memorandum statements and cited parity with other co-accused who received bail
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite allegations of complex digital forgery and financial fraud
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 12. Whether the rejection of the main co-accused’s bail application and the ongoing nature of the investigation serve as sufficient grounds to deny the applicant relief
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 6Law Applied
The Court considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail
Source reference: p. 2It examined the penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 318(4) (cheating), 338 (forgery), 336(3), 340(2), 111(2), 61(2), 3(5), and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act (identity theft/fraudulent use of digital signatures)
Source reference: p. 2, 4The Court further applied the principle of judicial consistency, noting that the dismissal of a primary co-accused's bail application (Sanjay Kumar Verma in MCRCA No. 1946 of 2025) is a relevant factor in determining the gravity of the conspiracy
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court balanced the applicant's plea of innocence and lack of criminal antecedents against the gravity of the state’s evidence
Source reference: p. 3-4It found that the applicant was allegedly part of a conspiracy that involved sophisticated manipulation of government software and the use of forged land records to defraud a public sector bank
Source reference: p. 3-4The Court specifically noted that the loan was sanctioned in the applicant's name and the funds were subsequently misappropriated
Source reference: p. 3-4While the applicant claimed parity, the Court distinguished the case by highlighting that the main accused's bail had already been rejected
Source reference: p. 4Given the serious nature of the allegations involving technological tampering and the fact that the investigation remains pending, the Court determined that custodial interrogation or restricted liberty might be necessary for a thorough probe
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail due to the severity of the fraud and the ongoing investigation
The Court rejected the application (MCRCA No. 951 of 2026), noting that the conspiracy to manipulate the Bhuiya software and the rejection of the main co-accused’s bail outweighed the applicant's arguments for parity
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Original Court PDF
DINURAM YADAVvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in