1 2025:CGHC:14810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2454 of 2025 Rakesh Kansari S/o Johan Kansari Aged About 44 Years R/o Gobra Nawapara Raipur, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Aamanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Poshan Kumar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy G.A. For Objector : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.03.2025 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. 432/2024 registered at Police Station Aamanaka, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Bole, lodged a written complaint stating that he is a resident of Bilaspur RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and works in the property business. A person named Raja Singh contacted him over the phone and promised to introduce him to a party interested in purchasing 04 acres and 35 decimals of land located on the road near Chandandih Tatibandh. Acting on this information, the complainant traveled to Raipur to the location specified by Raja Singh, where another person, Anand Jangde alias Neeraj, was also present with Raja Singh. Anand showed the complainant a piece of land belonging to a woman named Manju Devi Agarwal and facilitated a meeting between the complainant and Manju Devi Agarwal, resulting in the execution of a sale agreement between the parties. During this process, Manju Devi demanded a token amount of Rs.10 lakh, out of which the complainant paid Rs. 5 lakh in cash on 17.10.2024. Subsequently, when the complainant asked Anand to arrange for the demarcation of the land, his mobile was found to be switched off. Thereafter, Raja Singh arranged a meeting between the complainant and Hari Sinha, who was associated with Manju Devi. Hari Sinha assured the complainant that he would return Rs. 5 lakh, and on 30.11.2024, the complainant transferred an additional Rs. 5 lakh to Manju Devi Agarwal’s account. Later, during the demarcation process, after a public notice was issued, the complainant received a legal notice from the lawyer of the actual owner of the land. Upon contacting the real owner and verifying the original documents, the complainant realized that he had been defrauded. Based on the complainant’s written complaint, a case was registered at Police Station Aamanaka, District Raipur, under Crime No. 432/2024 for offences 3 punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340, and 3(5) of the BNS, and the chargesheet has been filed. 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 compromise has been done between the parties and no objection application has been filed by the complainant on the bail application before the learned trial Court. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 10.12.2024. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector appeared and submits that the compromise has been done between the parties and no objection application has been filed by the complainant on the bail application before the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 10.12.2024, the fact that the compromise has been done between the parties and no objection application has been filed by the complainant on the bail application before the learned trial Court 4 and further the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, charge sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant- Rakesh Kansari, involved in Crime No. 432/2024 registered at Police Station Aamanaka, District Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, 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. (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 5 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan