1 2025:CGHC:1478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 150 of 2025 Keshav Banjare S/o Rewaram Banjare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bahtara, Post Bharchouka, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present Address - House No. 501, Block No. C, Batagaon Chowk Simran Skayar, P.S. Purani Basti District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 365/2024 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the complainant filed a written complaint at the concerned police station, alleging that the applicant ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.10 11:58:15 +0530 2 obtained a sum of money from him promising a job, but failed to provide the job and did not return the money. Based on this written complaint, the police registered an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that it is a fact that the complainant and his friends forcibly took the present applicant into their custody, detaining him at Anita Bhatpahari's house. They then coerced the applicant into signing an agreement to sell his Hyundai vehicle, which they subsequently kept in their illegal possession. Furthermore, the complainant threatened to murder the applicant if he disclosed the incident. Due to fear and pressure, the applicant was unable to file a complaint with the concerned police station. He also submits that the applicant is an Assistant Teacher Grade-2 and categorically denies obtaining any amount for providing a job or committing the alleged offense. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime. He further submits that the present applicant is in jail since 18.09.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the present applicant on the pretext of providing job obtained some amount from the complainant, but failed to provide the job and did not return the money. She also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedents of the similar nature 3 of the year 2020, which shows that the applicant is habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that in the present case the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent of the similar nature of the year 2020 which is still pending. Moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and he has been in jail since 18.09.2024, and conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Keshav Banjare, involved in Crime No. 365/2024 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing 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 his 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek