Madhya Pradesh High Court

Grant of Bail for Alleged Loan Fraud Where Evidence is Documentary and No Antecedents Exist

Mahesh Koshta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: April 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant, a 39-year-old Senior Executive, was arrested on March 13, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 304/2023.

Source reference: para. 1, 6

The prosecution alleged that while working for Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd., the applicant conspired with co-accused Amit Garg to sanction personal loans for three individuals based on forged salary slips.

Source reference: para. 6

The applicant contended he was merely a salaried employee responsible for data entry and that the loans were sanctioned by other bank officials.

Source reference: para. 4

He further argued that the evidence is primarily documentary and already seized.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation.

Source reference: para. 1, 6
03

Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Source reference: para. 1

Section 120-B, 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

Source reference: para. 1

Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

Source reference: para. 9(5)
04

Reasoning

The court observed that the applicant has been in judicial custody since March 13, 2026, and that the investigation regarding him is "almost complete".

Source reference: para. 6

Although the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense, it conceded that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

Source reference: para. 5, 6

The court found that the applicant’s contentions—specifically that the money trail is documented and seized—had prima facie merit.

Source reference: para. 6

It reasoned that since the trial would take time to conclude and the applicant has family responsibilities, there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration.

Source reference: para. 7

The court determined there was no substantial risk of the applicant fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offense given his socio-economic status.

Source reference: para. 7
05

Holding

The Court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount.

Source reference: para. 9

The grant of bail is subject to several conditions, including regular appearance at hearings, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.

Source reference: para. 9

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.

Source reference: para. 10
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Mahesh KoshtavsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · April 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment