1 2025:CGHC:15683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2598 of 2025 Subhash Ram S/o Late Shri Ramlakhan Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - West Shekhpara, Alimkhoma, Thana - Magra, Distt. - Hooghly (West Bengal) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Bande, Distt. - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No - 02/2024, registered at Police Station – Bande, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections – 420, 467, 468, 471, 149 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, the complainant, Munendra Kumar lodged report against unknown persons on the same set of offence that PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 the complainant while searching the Mobile number of the Bank Manager from the Google App, he got the Cell number of the concerned Bank Manager and upon calling from his mobile phone he was asked to transfer the amount online from S.B.I. Farukhabad to C.A.P.S.P. account and after giving the information, an activation code came, which after telling it from the mobile, an amoubt of Rs. 9,50,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant by unknown persons and fraud was committed. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicant and co-accused persons on the basis of doubt, they were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet 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 co-accused persons, namely, Biren Bandhi, Syed Shadab Ali @ Karim and Ejaj Alam @ Samir have already been granted bail by the Court in MCRC Nos. 7768/2024, 7838/2024 and 8580/2024 vide order dated 03.01.2025 respectively. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 07.08.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 3 documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Biren Bandhi, Syed Shadab Ali and Ejaj Alam @ Samir have already been granted bail by the Court in MCRC Nos. 7768/2024, 7838/2024 and 8580/2024 vide order dated 03.01.2025 respectively, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 07.08.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Subhash Ram, involved in Crime No - 02/2024, registered at Police Station – Bande, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections – 420, 467, 468, 471, 149 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code, 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 4 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 hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti