1 2025:CGHC:17198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1815 of 2025 Abhay Bagde S/o Manoj Bagde Aged About 19 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Bangde In Impugned Order), R/o Linga Devri, Ward No.-4, Post- Devri, P.S.- Hatta, Tahsil And District - Balaghat (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer- Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video-conferencing. 2. 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. 490/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that as per First Information Report, the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 complainant, namely, Rajesh Sao had lodged a report stating that on 12.10.2024 at 9 pm he was standing in front of Om Jwellers at Sanjay Market, Jagdalpur and found that his mobile Oppo A53 with BSNL SIM No. 9407774061 was stolen and when the said SIM was restarted on 16.10.2024 a message of phone pay was received stating withdrawl of a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, 18,400/-, 10,200/-, 30,600/-, 15,300/-, 20,400/- total Rs. 99,900/- from his saving account No. 1188101011861, which was withdrawn by some unknown person, thus an FIR was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons. Thereafter, the applicants were arrested. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no act of cheating or misappropriation has been committed by the applicant, further the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 09.12.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant/accused, in collaboration with other co-accused, used mobile number 9039031453 to activate the complainant’s PhonePe account linked to his Canara Bank saving account. They allegedly withdrew approximately Rs. 99,900/- dishoneslty through online means, committing fraud, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 3 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that merely on the basis of memorandum statement, the applicant has been falsely implicated, further inspite of the time granted to the State counsel calling for the criminal antecedents from the State of Madhya Pradesh, the same has not been produced, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 09.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant -Abhay Bagde, involved in Crime No. 490/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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 4 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. 9. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Preeti