Allowed

Sandeep Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRCA/1527/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur granted anticipatory bail to the applicant who was apprehending arrest in a financial fraud case. The court noted that similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail and the applicant had no antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; directed to execute personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in like sum and abide by specified conditions.

Sandeep Bansal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

AMITA DUBEY

CGHC010355162026

2026:CGHC:40483

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.09.17 17:51:38 +0530

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

MCRCA No. 1527 of 2026

¶9

Sandeep Bansal S/o - Ghanshyam Das Bansal Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village Paanchgachiya P.S. - Ethapali Tehsil And District - Sambalpur (Orissa)

¶10

... Applicant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali District - Raigarh (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶16

16.09.2026

¶17

This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

¶18

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 187/2026 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 60 of the BNS.

¶19

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant who is one of the

¶20

¶21

owners of Shri Ram Transport Company, lodged an FIR alleging a financial fraud committed by two of his employees namely Prakash Mishra and Deepak Sharma. The complainant alleges that on 26.02.2026, he discovered duplicate bill vouchers bearing identical numbers had been prepared for different vehicles to authorize fraudulent payments. These duplicate voucher bills were allegedly drawn in the names of six individuals, including the present Applicant resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs.32,00,000/- to the company.

¶22

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the present applicant. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons namely Yasmin Banjara and Neha Chouhan have already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail vide orders dated 04.05.2026 and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC(A) No. 660/2026 and MCRC(A) 846 of 2026, respectively. Therefore, he prays that the present applicant may also be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, however, he conceded the fact that similarly situated coaccused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for respective parties, the fact that similarly situated coaccused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail and that

¶26

¶27

no previous antecedents have been reported against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶28

Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the Crime No. 187/2026, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶29

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when

¶30

required;

¶31

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶32

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶33

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶34

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till

¶35

disposal of the trial.

¶36

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶37

Sd/( Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Ami

Sandeep Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases