1 2025:CGHC:10322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1540 of 2025 Vivek Kumar Sharma S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 374, Shanti Nagar, Road No.- 5C, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2025 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. 171/2024 registered at Police Station : Vaishali Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution's case, as per the First Information Report, is that the complainant, Ravi Kumar Soni, owner of Kanti Jewelers, reported the following incident. On 11.04.2024, the applicant visited the shop, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.04 10:44:17 +0530 2 selected some jewelry, and requested the complainant to take the selected items to his residence. The applicant stated that if his family members approved the jewelry, he would make the payment. After his family members approved the purchase, the applicant gave the complainant a cheque from his HDFC Bank account. However, the cheque was dishonored when presented to the bank. Despite numerous requests, the applicant failed to make the payment, prompting the complainant to file a complaint against him. Consequently, the applicant was arrested, and an investigation was conducted, resulting in a charge-sheet being filed under Sections 406, 420, 411, and 120B of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the present applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the similar nature which is also listed today for hearing before this Court, except these cases the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 18.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity 3 of offence and further the fact that the present applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the similar nature which is also listed today for hearing before this Court, except these cases the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 18.10.2024 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Vivek Kumar Sharma, involved in Crime No. 171/2024 registered at Police Station : Vaishali Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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 Abhishek