[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Girish Jolhe vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1663 of 2026
Girish Jolhe S/o Shri Hemlal Jolhe Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Hirri,
P.S. City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.)
... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.19
11:19:13 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kharsia, District Raigarh
(C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Soni, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
For Objector : Mr. Aakash Ahuja, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
18.03.2026
1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
12/2026 registered at Police Station - Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Loknath
Ratre, lodged a written complaint alleging that the present applicant,
along with others, induced him to avail a loan by representing that the
applicant would arrange and manage the loan and repay the
installments, subject to payment of a certain percentage of the loan
amount. It is alleged that a loan of Rs. 27,25,000/- was sanctioned in
the name of the complainant, out of which an amount of Rs.
20,76,000/- was credited to his bank account after deductions, and
thereafter the present applicant transferred the said amount to his own
account on the pretext of managing the loan. It is further alleged that
although the applicant initially paid a few installments, he
subsequently stopped making payments, as a result of which the
liability fell upon the complainant, and upon being asked to repay the
installments, the applicant refused, thereby cheating the complainant.
On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 12/2026 has been
registered at Police Station Kharsia, District Raigarh, for the offence
under Section 420 IPC, and the applicant has been arrested on
06.01.2026 and is in judicial custody since then.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has
not committed any offence as alleged; it is further submitted that the
applicant is merely working as a computer operator under the main
accused Shyam Sundar Jangde, who is involved in other similar
cases, and no ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are
made out against the present applicant; it is also contended that there
is an unexplained delay of about one year and seven months in
lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story;
learned counsel further submits that the applicant is neither the
beneficiary of the alleged loan amount nor a signatory to any loan
agreement, and the loan amount was sanctioned and credited to the
complainant's own bank account by the Bank, and there is no
documentary or electronic evidence to show that any amount was
transferred to or misappropriated by the applicant; it is also submitted
that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of
memorandum statements of co-accused, which have no evidentiary
value, and that the role attributed to the applicant is limited, at best, to
that of a computer operator with no financial or contractual liability
towards the complainant; it is further contended that the dispute, even
if taken at its face value, is predominantly civil in nature arising out of
a loan transaction, which has been given a criminal colour; learned
counsel also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, no
further custodial interrogation is required, and no recovery has been
made or is pending against the applicant; it is further submitted that
although the applicant has criminal antecedents of similar nature, he
has been granted bail in those cases and has not misused the liberty
granted to him; therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged
on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel
for the objector have opposed the bail application of the present
applicant and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed
in the present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
filed before the competent Court and and that the applicant has
remained in judicial custody since 06.01.2026, and as the conclusion
of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant
regular bail to the present applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Girish Jolhe, involved in Crime No. 12/2026
registered at Police Station - Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC., be released on
bail on his 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 his under
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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
