1 2025:CGHC:16922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2854 of 2025 Jitesh Kumar Chandra S/o Late Arjun Singh Chandra Aged About 28 Years Caste Chandranahu, R/o Village Chandeladih, P.S. Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. 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. 04/2025 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Manoj Kumar Chouhan, filed a written complaint stating that on 01.02.2024, the Branch Manager of Bharat Finance, Champa, namely Ankit Kumar Gupta, along with Sushil Suman and the present applicant, visited the complainant’s residence and offered to sanction a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- from IndusInd Bank. It is alleged that although the said loan amount was credited to the complainant’s bank account, the same was withdrawn without his knowledge or consent. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 07.01.2025, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet (challan) was filed before the competent court. 4. 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 similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Ankit Gupta has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2788/2025. The applicant is in jail since 07.01.2025, the 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 on the ground of parity. 5. 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 Branch Manager of Bharat Finance, Champa, namely Ankit Kumar Gupta, along with Sushil Suman and the present applicant, visited the complainant’s 3 residence and offered to sanction a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- from IndusInd Bank, the said loan amount was credited to the complainant’s bank account, the same was withdrawn without his knowledge or consent, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 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 07.01.2025, the fact that applicant alongwith other co- accused persons visited the complainant’s residence and offered to sanction a loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- from IndusInd Bank, the said loan amount was credited to the complainant’s bank account, the same was withdrawn without his knowledge or consent, but other of the co-accused person, namely, Ankit Gupta has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2788/2025 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. 8. Let the Applicant- Jitesh Kumar Chandra, involved in Crime No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 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:- 4 (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 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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan