1 2025:CGHC:18845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3187 of 2025 Saurabh Jagtap S/o Shri Ravindra Rao Jagtap Aged About 25 Years R/o Loharasi, P.S. Arjuni District- Dhamtari (CG) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer- Police Station- Gurur District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/04/2025 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. 172/2024 registered at Police Station Gurur District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that in August 2019, the applicant took Rs. 2,50,000/- from him with the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 promise of providing a job in the Forest Department. The complainant was instructed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to Bhevendra Sahu at Dhamtari and Rs. 25,000 through Paytm, totaling approximately Rs. 3,75,000. However, the applicant failed to provide the job or return the money. Based on the complainant's report, the police registered a crime and filed a charge-sheet before the concerned court, subsequently, he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 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 there is no seizure of money has been made from the possession of present applicant, further there is no transaction ever been done between them. He also submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident is of 2019 and FIR was lodged in the year 2024 shows that the present FIR has been lodged only to implicate the applicant in the alleged crime. The applicant is in jail since 06.02.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, 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 is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant, he took Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant with the promise of providing a job in the Forest Department, therefore he was instructed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to Bhevendra Sahu at Dhamtari and Rs. 25,000 through Paytm, 3 totaling approximately Rs. 3,75,000, but the applicant failed to provide him job or return the money, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 06.02.2025, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant by taking Rs. 3,75,000/- from him with the promise of providing a job in the Forest Department, but the applicant has no criminal antecedent, further 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. 7. Let the Applicant-Saurabh Jagtap, involved in Crime No. 172/2024 registered at Police Station Gurur District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 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:- (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 4 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 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. 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