Anticipatory bail was denied where loan proceeds were allegedly obtained on a false promise to close the complainant’s loan.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 474/2026 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba, for an alleged offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant alleged that she obtained a loan of ₹3,06,545 from Bajaj Finance through the applicant, an alleged agent of the finance company, and received ₹2,81,790 after deduction of processing charges. She subsequently transferred the loan amount to the applicant on his assurance that the loan account would be closed, but the applicant allegedly failed to close the account. Although he deposited the monthly EMIs from June 2025 to June 2026, he thereafter stopped making payments, resulting in deduction of the EMI and penalty from the complainant’s bank account.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the complainant had voluntarily transferred the amount to him with an understanding that he would use it and repay the loan through monthly EMIs. He argued that the dispute was essentially civil and monetary, that the ingredients of cheating were not established, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the evidence was documentary and electronic.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the allegation that the applicant had obtained the money on the assurance of closing the loan account and had subsequently defaulted on the EMI payments.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence alleged under Section 318(4) of the BNS?

Whether the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s specific role, and the alleged failure to close the complainant’s loan account justified refusal of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

It also considered Section 318(4) of the BNS, concerning the alleged commission of cheating resulting in dishonest or fraudulent delivery of property.

The grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the material collected during investigation.

The Court acknowledged the competing versions but focused on the prosecution allegation that the applicant, acting as an agent of Bajaj Finance, obtained ₹2,81,790 from the complainant on a specific assurance that he would close her loan account.

The Court treated the alleged failure to close the account, followed by cessation of EMI payments and deduction of the EMI with penalty from the complainant’s account, as material allegations directly implicating the applicant.

Considering the specific role attributed to him, the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the material collected during investigation, the Court declined to accept the applicant’s contention that the matter was merely civil or that anticipatory bail should be granted at that stage.

The application under Section 482 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected, and anticipatory bail was denied to Shashank Kumar Singh in Crime No. 474/2026 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba, for the alleged offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS.