1 2025:CGHC:10873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1781 of 2025 Mateen Khan S/o Shri Ejajul Rahman @ Babalu Aged About 27 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar Near Masjid Chuchuhiyapara, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Rakhi, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 225/2024 registered at Police Station Rakhi, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.10.2024, the complainant, namely, Chaman Lal Sahu, a Sub Engineer in the Public Works Department, Section -17, New Raipur, filed a written AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 complaint at Police Station Rakhi, Raipur, alleging therein that on 17.10.202, after converting his mobile to E-SIM, unknown individuals withdrew Rs.8,86,186.71/- from his SBI account and Union Bank account using UPI between 24.09.2024 to 07.10.2024. Based on complaint alleged offence has been registered against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, present applicant has been arrested. Hence the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that two of the similarly situated co- accused persons, namely, Meraj Alam and Kamal Kishor Netam have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 in MCRC Nos. 1563/2025 and 9127/2025, further no recovery has been made from present applicant, whereas from the possession of co-accused, Meraj Alam Rs.1,97,000/- has been recovered, who has already been granted bail. The applicant is in jail since 08.01.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons had fraudulently withdrew Rs.8,86,186.71/- from complainant’s account through UPI between 24.09.2024 to 07.10.2024, causing him financial loss, therefore, he 3 is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 08.01.2025, the fact that though the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons had fraudulently withdrew Rs.8,86,186.71/- from complainant’s account through UPI between 24.09.2024 to 07.10.2024, causing him financial loss, but there is no recovery made from the possession of present applicant, further considering the fact that two of the co-accused, namely, Meraj Alam and Kamal Kishor Netam have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 in MCRC Nos. 1563/2025 and 9127/2025 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, Kamal Kishor Netam and better than that of the co-accused, Meraj Alam, further he has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Mateen Khan, involved in Crime No. 225/2024 registered at Police Station Rakhi, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 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:- 4 (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 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil