Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain, arrested in Crime No.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, the applicant, while acting as a tax consultant for the complainant Sachindra, allegedly misappropriated entrusted KYC documents, including an Aadhar card, PAN card and digital signature, and used them to fraudulently register entities including “Somvati Trading Agency Private Company” and “Artech Solution” without the complainant’s knowledge. The prosecution alleged that the entities and forged credentials were then used to obtain unauthorised loans from Tata Capital, ICICI Bank, ECL Finance and Dhani Loans, involving an alleged financial fraud of Rs.45,88,416/-. It was also alleged that the complainant’s wife’s signature was forged and a stranger’s photograph was used for guarantor documentation.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant was innocent and falsely implicated. The defence relied, among other things, on financial transactions between P.M. Construction and Artech Solutions and submitted that the complainant was aware of the entities. It was also argued that registration of the company and GST registration involved verification, and that the applicant had been in custody since 16.2.2026. The State opposed bail, while stating that the charge sheet had been submitted.
The Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, took into consideration that the charge sheet had been submitted, that the applicant had one criminal antecedent under the PC Act which was pending, that he had remained in jail since 16.2.2026, and that conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and directed his release on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specified conditions concerning attendance, adjournments, appearance during key stages of trial and consequences of misuse of bail.
Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution case centred on allegations of breach of trust, forgery and financial fraud amounting to Rs.45,88,416/- under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
It was alleged that the applicant, who was acting as a tax consultant for the complainant Sachindra, misused KYC documents entrusted to him. These documents included an Aadhar card, PAN card and digital signature.
According to the prosecution, the documents were used to fraudulently register “Somvati Trading Agency Private Company” and “Artech Solution” without the complainant’s knowledge. The prosecution further alleged that the applicant used the fictitious companies and forged credentials to procure unauthorised loans from various institutions, including Tata Capital, ICICI Bank, ECL Finance and Dhani Loans.
The prosecution also alleged that the signature of the complainant’s wife was forged and a stranger’s photograph was used for guarantor documentation.
Applicant’s Submissions
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
The defence submitted that the complainant Shachindra Deshmukh was a partner in P.M. Construction along with his wife and that, on 20.11.2017, a transaction of Rs.9,08,482/- had taken place between P.M. Construction and Artech Solutions, with money transferred from P.M. Construction to Artech Solutions.
On this basis, it was argued that the complainant was aware of Artech Solution and was undertaking financial transactions with it. The defence further submitted that the complainant was a partner in Artech Solutions and director in Somvatti company and enjoyed profits, remuneration and other benefits, for which the complainant had paid income tax.
It was also argued that company registration and GST registration required verification at every stage, including Aadhar Card verification through biometrics, and that the entire process could not have been fabricated without the complainant’s knowledge.
The applicant’s counsel further submitted that the complainant came to know about the alleged fraudulent companies through a GST notice received at his residential address, which, according to the defence, showed that other communications concerning registration of GST and the firm could also have been received at the same address.
The defence stated that the applicant had one criminal antecedent under the PC Act which was pending and that he had been in jail since 16.2.2026. Bail was therefore sought.
State’s Opposition to Bail
Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application.
The State submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 16.7.2026, the concerned Investigating Officer had also filed an affidavit. The State further submitted that the charge sheet had been filed and sought rejection of the bail application.
High Court’s Consideration
The High Court heard learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the case diary.
In considering the bail application, the Court took into account that the charge sheet had already been submitted against the applicant. The Court also noted that the applicant had one criminal antecedent registered against him under the PC Act and that the same was pending, as mentioned in the bail application.
The Court further considered the applicant’s custody since 16.2.2026 and the circumstance that conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time.
Taking these facts and circumstances into consideration, the Court was of the view that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
Bail Granted Subject to Conditions
The High Court directed that Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain, involved in Crime No.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Conditions of Bail
- The applicant shall file an undertaking that he shall not seek any adjournment on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in Court. In case of default, the trial court may treat it as abuse of the liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
- The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- If the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and, 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 the proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- The applicant shall remain personally present before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If the trial court considers the absence deliberate or without sufficient cause, it may treat the default as abuse of the liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to the applicant subject to the conditions specified in the order.
The Court also directed its office to send a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
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.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution’s case against applicant centers on a calculated breach of trust, forgery, and financial fraud totaling Rs. 45,88,416/-(forty-five lakhs eighty-eight thousand four hundred and sixteen rupees only) under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. Acting as a tax consultant for the complainant (Sachindra) the applicant misappropriated entrusted KYC documents-including an Aadhar card, PAN card, and digital signature-to fraudulently register shell entities such as “Somvati Trading Agency Private Company” and “Artech Solution” without the complainant’s knowledge. Using these fictitious companies and forged credentials, applicant systematically procured massive unauthorized loans from various institutions, including Tata Capital, ICICI Bank, ECL Finance, and Dhani Loans, even going so far as to forge the signature of the complainant’s wife and use a stranger’s photograph for guarantor documentation, with an intention of financial fraud. Thereafter FIR has been registered. Hence the bail application.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Complainant Shachindra Deshmukh is a partner in P.M. Construction along with his wife, and on 20.11.2017 transaction amounting to Rs.9,08,482/- has been carried out between P.M. Construction company and Artech Solutions. Where money has been transferred from Complainant’s Company (P.M. Construction) to Artech Solutions which shows that the complainant was well aware about the company Artech Solution and as he was doing financial transactions with the same. The complainant is partner in Artech Solutions and director in Somvatti company, and profits, remuneration and all benefits are enjoyed by the complainant and for which complainant has paid income tax. The registration of company and GST registration, requires verification at every step including Aadhar Card verification which can only be done through biomatrices and faking the whole process without complainant’s knowledge is not possible. If the prosecution case is taken as it is, the complainant got to know about the fraudulent companies through GST notice received to him in his residential address, which clearly shows he has received other communications also, regarding the registration of GST and registration of firm, as the point of contact was his residential home. The applicant has 1 criminal antecedent under the PC Act which is pending. The applicant is in jail since 16.2.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 16.7.2026, the concerned I.O. has also filed his affidavit. However, he submits that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent, and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, applicant has 1 criminal antecedent registered against him under the PC Act and the same is pending, which is mentioned in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since 16.2.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.
7. Let the Applicant – Rakesh Bhabhutmal Jain, involved in Crime No.346/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC, be released on bail on 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 applicants are 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 them 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.
