1 2025:CGHC:21094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3032 of 2025 Sukdev Sahu S/o Hemlal Aged About 35 Years R/o Sindhari, P.S. Baramkela, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Manipur, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) …. Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 149/2024 registered at Police Station – Manipur, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 120(b), 420, 489(क), 489(ग), 489(घ), 489(ड़) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police has received information by the complainant that the co-accused persons were kept forgery currency note for using of sale and also he has received amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant in the name of treatment of Tantra-Mantra and Police has registered the case against the unknown persons and on the basis of the memorandum RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 statement the Police has arrested the applicant. Hence, this application. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5572/2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the trial of the present case is on going on and the seizure witnesses have been turned hostile in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.05.2024, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant along with the co-accused persons, conspired to cheat the complainant, by promising to increase his money through tantric rituals and fake notes, they convinced him to arrange Rs. 6,00,000/- promising it would increase to Rs. 1 Crore, on 30.04.2024, when the complainant brought the money, the accused persons performed a tantric ritual in village Bardodi, gave him an intoxicating substance, and escaped with the money, on which basis the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court. Thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the seizure witnesses have turned hostile, the same 3 cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant along with the co-accused persons, conspired to cheat the complainant, by promising to increase his money through tantric rituals and fake notes, they convinced him to arrange Rs. 6,00,000/- promising it would increase to Rs. 1 Crore, on 30.04.2024, when the complainant brought the money, the accused persons performed a tantric ritual in village Bardodi, gave him an intoxicating substance, and escaped with the money, on which basis the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Sukdev Sahu involved in Crime No. 149/2024 registered at Police Station – Manipur, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 120(b), 420, 489(क), 489(ग), 489(घ), 489(ड़) of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Office 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 Rajshekhar