1 2025:CGHC:15022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2483 of 2025 Deepak Kumar S/o Uday Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Sikandarpur, P.S. Bovani Khera, District- Bhivani, Haryana ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/03/2025 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. 833/2021 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present Crime No.833/21 P.S. Bemetara has been registered on the basis of an application moved by the complainant to SDO, Bemetara. It has AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 been mentioned in the application that Ozone Cars Selling Private Limited and Bladecube Technologies Private Limited whose CIN No. is U74999HR2019PTC083031 & CIN NO- U63030D12016PTC299771, having its registration in Haryana and Delhi. The owners of these two companies are Amit Kumar Gangwar and Deepak Kumar whose DIN is 07945771 and 07445007 respectively. Deepak Kumar's younger brother is working in Airforce, whose name is Manoj Kumar and when the complainant came on leave to his home at Bemetara in 2019 then Manoj Kumar who works with him in the Air Force contacted him over the phone and said that he will get his cars and bikes in 30 days at a big discount and also requested him that the people around your house or near you and those who are connected with you, make contact and give him an order, he will get them cars and bikes at a low rate. Mainly Manoj Kumar is connected to the company through his elder brother Deepak Kumar and Manoj Kumar adds people to this company on the instructions of Deepak Kumar and Manoj Kumar added other people from the Air Force on the instructions of Deepak Kumar who is his elder brother and to gain confidence, he said that he is the owner of the company. When the complainant asked Manoj Kumar for the full details of the company, Manoj Kumar gave this statement that he is the owner of the company. If anything happens, then the entire responsibility will be of him and his elder brother Deepak Kumar. After this, the complainant discussed this with his close people and family relatives and people and they also agreed to buy the car and bike. 3 Gradually, he kept delivering cars and bikes to people and people started trusting him. The complainant, Dushyant Kumar Verma serving in the Air Force and when he told this to his brother Mr. Harish Kumar Verma, he also told his friends and people, trusting him, gave money for the car and bike. It is the contention of the complainant that between August 2020 to January 2021, except to one or two people, these people neither gave the vehicle nor returned the money. Till December 2020, these people did not deliver the car and bike to them and kept giving dates after dates and when the complainant pressurized them for refund of money, then Deepak Kumar's brother Manoj Kumar, who is in the Air Force said that his old booking has to be cleared and then they will clear your amount after giving you a new booking. The amount received by the beneficiaries in complainant's account (Dushyant Kumar and his younger brother Harish Kumar Verma) was transferred directly to the company and Manoj Kumar's account on the instructions of Manoj Kumar, for which the bank statement is attached as proof. Till now a total of Rs.3779000.00 (thirty seven lakh eighty nine thousand) has been transferred to the company Ozone Carz Selling Private Limited and Rs.2321000.00 (twenty three lakh twenty one thousand) has been transferred to Manoj Kumar's account. 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 the applicant has refunded a total sum of Rs.16 lakhs between December, 2020 to February, 2021 to Dushant Verma, Harish Verma and their cousins. He also 4 submits that the applicant could not surrender in the present case, though the FIR against the applicant was lodged on 22.11.2021 as he was arrested in another case at Uttar Pradesh and he was granted bail vide order dated 11.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32562 of 2024 and thereafter, he was arrested in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2024, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which, one case is of the year 2022 in the State of Haryana and another case is of the year 2021 in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 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 alongwith other co-accused persons had embezzled a huge amount of Rs.61,00,000/- out of which, Rs.23,21,000/- has been transferred in the account of brother of present applicant and one of the owners of the company is present applicant, which shows the involvement of present applicant in the case, further the applicant has two criminal antecedents pending against him in the State of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, lastly, the crime in question is of serious nature and the involvement of the applicant alongwith his brother in the crime cannot be ruled out, as such, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 23.12.2024, and further the fact that so far as the delay caused in custody of the applicant is concerned, it appears that the applicant was arrested in another case in Uttar Pradesh, wherein, he was granted bail vide order dated 11.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32562 of 2024, due to which, though the FIR was registered on 22.11.2021, the applicant was taken into custody on 23.12.2024, further, from the perusal of the case diary goes to show that the embezzled amount has been received in the account of one Manoj Kumar, lastly charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Deepak Kumar, involved in Crime No. 833/2021 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the IPC, 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 6 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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