1 2025:CGHC:15670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2621 of 2025 Varendra Kumar Nishad S/o Rewaram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhaismundi, PS Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gurur, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/04/2025 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. 224/2024 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by the complainant Maheshwari Dhruw stating that Kholbahra GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.04 10:48:59 +0530 2 Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam lured the villagers and asked the ladies of the village to form a group of 3-4 people and they will take loan from the banks in the name of those groups and provide 10% in the loan amount taken from every individual ladies and they will keep the rest of the amount for further investment and also promises that they will repay the installments of those loans, therefore on the promise of Kholbahra Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam, the villagers applied for loan through them and after getting their commission of 10%, they have handed over the amount to Kholbahra Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam. It has been further alleged that, when the recovery agent calls for the repayment of installment then they came to know about the fraud which Kholbahra Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam has committed and thereafter the written complaint has been submitted and Kholbahra Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam were arrested by the police. The case against the present applicant is that he had not reported the aforesaid fraud to the police even when the same has come into his knowledge and therefore the aforementioned offences are also made out against him and the present applicant has been arrested. 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. Learned counsel submits that the present applicant has not been named in the FIR nor his name has been stated in complaint. The complaint and FIR have been registered only against the other co- accused persons namely Kholbahra Kaiwartya, Chandrahas Kariyam and Sarita Kariyam and the present applicant is not involved in the 3 present offence in either way. He would submit that present applicant is a collection agent only and he has nothing to do with the sanction of loan to the beneficiaries. He would submit that the present applicant has not done any forged sign of the deceased husband of Sagar Bai as alleged by her which is evident from the bare perusal of the loan sanction letter to Sagar Bai in which her daughter has signed as guarantor. He would submit that the applicant is a collection agent in the Jana Small Finance Bank and he was just rendering his duty which has been assigned by the Bank to him and he has no role in the sanction of loan and any other process whatsoever, he was a collection agent there and hence he used to collect installments from the beneficiaries and others only as per direction of the bank. He would submit that neither any incriminating material has been seized nor any money has been recovered from the present applicant. Furthermore, he has not been shown to be a beneficiary in any manner whatsoever in the entire transaction. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 9/03/2025, charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and he would submit that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come into light subsequently in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of two witnesses namely Sagar Bai and Shabana Begum and FIR has been registered against the six accused persons. He would submit that that there is no criminal history against the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come into light subsequently in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of two witnesses namely Sagar Bai and Shabana Begum and FIR has been registered against the six accused persons and it has been argued that the applicant was not the beneficiary of the amount which was given by the respective persons and no recovery of any incriminating article was made from the possession of the applicant, further the case of present applicant is distinguishable from the persons who have been named in the FIR, charge sheet has been filed and there is no criminal history against the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Varendra Kumar Nishad, involved in Crime No. 224/2024 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC, 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 5 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 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri