Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Bank Employee Accused Of Altering Borrowers’ Aadhaar Addresses, Citing Parity With Main Accused

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, including on the ground of parity with co-accused who had received anticipatory bail.

The court held

The Court allowed the bail application.

It also directed

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct not prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.

01Facts

The applicant, a bank employee, was accused of assisting the principal accused in obtaining loans by altering victims’ Aadhaar-card addresses and receiving a 2% commission.

¶ 2

The principal accused allegedly induced the complainant to take loans on the promise that he would bear 65% of the liability, invest the funds in the share market, and repay the EMIs.

¶ 2

The applicant was not named in the FIR and was implicated on the basis of co-accused persons’ memorandum statements.

¶ 2

He was arrested on 4 July 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed by the time of the bail hearing.

¶ 2, 6–7

The State relied on two alleged live criminal antecedents; the applicant submitted that the FIRs placed on record did not name him as an accused.

¶ 3–4, 6–7

The principal accused and another co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail.

¶ 3–4, 6–7

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, including on the ground of parity with co-accused who had received anticipatory bail.

¶ 3, 7

ii.Whether the alleged criminal antecedents and the prosecution’s opposition warranted refusing bail despite the applicant’s custody and completion of investigation.

¶ 4, 6–7

03Law Applied

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s powers to grant bail.

¶ 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶ 1

The Court applied the principle of parity in assessing bail, alongside the circumstances that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody, and trial was likely to take considerable time.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and had been implicated through the memorandum statements of named accused persons.

¶ 6

Although the State relied on two alleged similar antecedents, the FIRs produced showed that the applicant was not named in either.

¶ 4, 6

The Court also considered that the principal accused and another co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail, and that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet filed, and the applicant in custody since 4 July 2026, with trial likely to take considerable time.

¶ 7

On those circumstances, it found the case fit for bail on the ground of parity, without expressing any view on the merits.

¶ 7