1 2025:CGHC:17648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2414 of 2025 • Mahesh Mohan Kadam S/o Mohan Kadam, Aged About 37 Years R/o Motibaag Gali, Gram- Mannur, District- Belgan, Karnataka. ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ranchirai, District- Balod, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. 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.44 of 2023 registered at Police Station : Ranchirai, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(d) of I.T Act. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 12:32:23 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant, received a call from an unknown mobile number and the called gave him assurance to help the complainant for a job and for that the alleged accused received sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- on different accounts but no job was offered and ultimately the instant FIR was lodged under Section 420, 34 of IPC and Section 66(d) of I.T. Act. 4. It has been argued by learned Advocate for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the applicant has not used any sum from those bank accounts nor any such allegation was leveled against him earlier, further under pressure the complainant took Rs. 5,25,000/- from the wife of the applicant. He further submits that during the course of hearing on the bail plea of the applicant before the learned trail Court the complainant gave no objection but during the hearing of the bail plea before the learned sessions Court the applicant made objection and the applicant is in jail since 11.02.2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, she prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned State counsel also opposes the bail application and submitted that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and also considering the fact that the 3 complainant has filed an ikrarnama before the learned trial Court stating his no objection in granting bail to the applicant and the applicant is in jail since 11.02.2025 and trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let applicant, Mahesh Mohan Kadam, involved in Crime No. 44 of 2023 registered at Police Station Ranchirai for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(d) of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 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 4 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali