Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
1 MCRC-56297-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56297 of 2025
MANISH KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Senior Advocate with Shri Jalaj Dwivedi - Advocate for
the applicant.
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the respondent/CBI.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS/439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.
RC0082025A0008 registered at Police Station – CBI/ACB, District Bhopal
(M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4) of BNS and
Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Applicant has
been arrested on 1.09.2025.
2. According to the prosecution story, the Central Bureau of
Investigation (ACB), Bhopal registered FIR No. RC0082025A0008 under
Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) alleging that a criminal
conspiracy was hatched involving multiple accused persons including private
individuals and officials of UCO Bank to defraud the bank by obtaining gold
loans against counterfeit gold ornaments. It is alleged that 73 gold loan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
2 MCRC-56297-2025
accounts were fraudulently sanctioned at the Lalghati branch of UCO Bank,
Bhopal based on fake gold items appraised and certified by empanelled
valuers. These fake ornaments were purportedly pledged by the borrowers
some of whom are alleged to have familial or associative ties with the
applicant Manish Kushwaha. The FIR and subsequent charge sheet assert
that the appraisers in collusion with accused bank staff and private
individuals provided false valuation certificates and enabled the
disbursement of approximately Rs 6.5 crore later assessed to be Rs. 7.083
crore during further investigation. The CBI investigation claims that
applicant Manish Kushwaha played a key role in orchestrating the fraudulent
transactions by encouraging and facilitating the opening of loan accounts in
the names of relatives and others with the fake gold allegedly provided or
arranged by him. The FIR notes that some of the loan proceeds were routed
to accounts linked to the applicant or withdrawn in cash allegedly pointing to
his involvement in siphoning off funds. Therefore, aforesaid offence has
been registered against him.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since
1.09.2025. It is submitted that prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Gold loan was sanctioned only after the jewellary was examined,
weighed and certified by empanelled bank authorized valuers. Applicant was
neither the goldsmith nor the valuer of bank therefore, he was not
responsible to determine the purity and genuineness of the gold and if the
jewellery is found fake, he cannot be made accused. He has been dragged in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
3 MCRC-56297-2025
the alleged offence only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-
accused who was deeply involved in this crime. It is submitted that there is
no CCTV footage showing the applicant at Bank. Though the matter was
argued on merits but learned Senior Counsel has also taken this point that
charge sheet has been filed but alongwith charge sheet CFSL/Expert Opinion
regarding fake gold jewellary is not filed due to which charge sheet is
incomplete but learned trial court has erroneously rejected the bail
application. In this regard counsel for applicant has placed reliance on Arif
Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
8610/2023, Mohd. Arbaz, ETC. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8164-8166/2021, Directorate of Enforcement Vs.
Manpreet Singh Talwar, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5724/2023,
Suleman Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 1929/2023. Therefore, applicant is entitled for default bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application on
the ground that applicant is the beneficiary and amount has been credited in
his account. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
that three co-accused empanelled valuers/appraisers, namely, Deepak Soni
(S/o Shri Chhaganlal Soni), Proprietor of M/s Saubhagya Jewellers; Deepak
Soni, Proprietor of M/s Gauri Abhusan and Sandeep Soni, exploited their
exclusive positions and issued false authentication certificates for fake gold
loans in four UCO Bank (United Commercial Bank) branches in Bhopal.
This fraud has resulted in an estimated financial loss of approximately Rs.
25-26 crores. These co-accused persons h a s issued false authentication
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
4 MCRC-56297-2025
certificates in 73 gold loan cases. All these gold loan accounts subsequently
slipped into NPA, causing a loss of about Rs. 6.5 crores to UCO Bank,
Marwari Branch, Bhopal.
5. It is further submitted that the accused borrowers subsequently
withdrew the loan amounts or transferred the money into the savings
accounts of the accused middlemen. It is also submitted that, on the
directions of the Zonal Office, UCO Bank, Bhopal, verification and re-
appraisal of existing gold loan accounts were carried out by corporate
valuers. On 28.02.2025, 01.03.2025, and 04.03.2025, it was found that the
jewellery pledged in 73 gold loan accounts was either completely or partially
fake.
6. It is further submitted that the applicant, Manish Kushwaha, had
availed one gold loan (Account No. 1360610022481) by pledging fake
jewellery as genuine. His wife, Manisha Thakur, also availed four gold loans
from the bank, which were declared fraudulent by the corporate valuers. The
father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law of the accused also availed
gold loan accounts from the Lalghati Branch of the bank by pledging fake
jewellery. All these loan accounts were opened at the instance of the
applicant.
7. It is also submitted that some associates of the accused availed gold
loans by pledging fake jewellery in conspiracy with others, at the direction of
the accused. The loan proceeds from their bank accounts were transferred to
the accounts of the accused, the applicant, and his wife. During the
investigation, details of the money deposited by 11 borrowers into the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
5 MCRC-56297-2025
accounts of the applicant and his wife have been mentioned in the charge
sheet. The applicant has two prior criminal cases on record, i.e., Account
Nos. RC0082025A006 and RC0082025A009. It is further submitted that the
present applicant, the accused borrowers, and the valuers were in close
contact through mobile phones, and the CDR reports reveal that they were in
constant communication with each other. It is submitted that this is an
economic offence in which the huge public money has been defalcated by
the accused persons kept in the Bank. Charge sheet has been filed.
8. It also submitted that till the issue in question i.e. whether a charge-
sheet filed without CFSL report/Expert opinion regarding fake gold jewellary
is complete or incomplete for the purpose of default bail is decided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the prevailing law will cover the present case and the
applicant will not be entitled to grant of default bail.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The present application has also been filed seeking default bail on
the ground of non-filing of CFSL report/Expert Opinion regarding fake gold
jewellary alongwith the chargesheet, and the main grievance of applicant is
that the trial Court has erroneously declined the relief of default bail to him.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that in recent judgment of Supreme
Court delivered in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 66, wherein it was held as under:
“22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under
Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details
prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under
Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:247526 MCRC-56297-2025
into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able
to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the
offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court.
The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents
and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5). As
settled in the afore-stated case, it is not necessary that all the
details of the offence must be stated.
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section
167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a
chargesheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending
against him. Once however, a chargesheet is filed, the said right
ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to
pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section
173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under
sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all
documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the
chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are
not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would
not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also well settled that
the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender.
Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the
court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes
cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it
is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section
173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation
qua the other accused or for production of some documents not
available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate
the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to
get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an
incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in
terms of Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C.”
12. Though in cases of Mohd. Arbaz & Ors Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
(supra), Arif Khan Vs. State (supra) and Pankaj Gupta Vs. Narcotics Control
Bureau (supra), the accused persons have been enlarged on interim bail by
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that, interim bail has been declined
by the Apex Court in the case of CBI. Vs. Kapil Wadhawan (supra), Pabitra
Narayan Pradhan Vs. The State (NGT) of Delhi (SLP (crI.) Diary No. 43791
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24752
7 MCRC-56297-2025
of 2023), Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai Vs. The State of Gujarat (order
dated 03.03.2023 in SLP (CrI) No.2562/2023).
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground
for grant of default bail to the present applicant.
15. Looking to the seriousness of offence, allegation levelled against
the applicant and the entire evidence available on record, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
16. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
navin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:45:20
