1 2025:CGHC:10273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1672 of 2025 Santosh Sahu S/o Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Road No. 05 Deepak Nagar Durg Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/03/2025 1 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2023, registered at Police Station – Vaishali Nagar Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District - Durg registered a Crime against two accused persons, namely, Arvind Bhai and N.Dhanraju. The written PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 report has been lodged and name of the complainant is Smt. Kshama Yadu who had lodged report on 21.03.2023. It is alleged against the applicant that he along with other co-accused persons have forfeited and prepared forged document of disputed land for sale and purchase from year 2015 to 2018, hence, this bail application. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 21.03.2023 and alleged fraud transaction is of the year 2017, but the applicant has been implicated in the year 2025, only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, Harishchandra Rathore. He also submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and one of the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, N. Dhanraju, who had purchased the land in question from Arvind Bhai has already been granted bail by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 13.12.2024 and the co-accused, namely, Santosh Singh @ Jaladhar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 284 of 2025. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 04.02.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused persons have forfeited and prepared forged document of disputed land for sale and purchase from year 2015 to 2018. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 3 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that as the case pertains to the year 2017 and the allegation against the applicant that he alongwith other co-accused persons alleged to have sold the land in question, which is already been registered in the name of the Industries Department to the complainant, but no criminal antecedent pending against him and the co-accused, namely, Santosh Singh @ Jaladhar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 284 of 2025, the charge-sheet has not been filed and he is in jail since 04.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Santosh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 61/2023, registered at Police Station – Vaishali Nagar Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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. 4 (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 him 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 Preeti