1 2025:CGHC:2796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 423 of 2025 1 - Sunil Datta Shatranj S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 32 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bade Rabeli, Police Station And Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Sakti, C.G. (Wrongaly Mentioned As District- Janjgir-Champa) 2 - Shashi Kapoor Shatranj S/o Shri Kartik Ram Aged About 40 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bade Rabeli, Police Station And Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Sakti, C.G. (Wrongaly Mentioned As District- Janjgir-Champa) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Malkharoda, District- Sakti, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 316/2024, registered at Police Station : Malkharoda, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.17 20:11:56 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants fraudulently took a sum of Rs. 10,55,000/- from the complainant and others in the months of November and December 2022, under the pretext of depositing it in the bank under a new scheme that promised an increased rate of interest. By doing so, the applicants allegedly committed the aforementioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent person and have been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the actual facts of the case is that employees/ofÏcers of the concerned bank utilized the applicant's house as a temporary ofÏce to store their records. Meanwhile, the applicant, complainant, and others individually deposited amounts into a scheme advised by the bank's employees. However, the applicants have been falsely implicated by the complainant in an attempt to recover an illegal amount from them. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 29.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicants fraudulently took a sum of Rs. 10,55,000/- from the complainant and others in the months of November and December 2022, under the pretext of depositing it in 3 the bank under a new scheme that promised an increased rate of interest and they have failed to return the amount. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 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 though the applicants fraudulently took a sum of Rs. 10,55,000/- from the complainant and others under the pretext of depositing it in the bank under a new scheme that promised an increased rate of interest and they have failed to return the amount, but the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 29.11.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicants – Sunil Datta Shatranj and Shashi Kapoor Shatranj, involved in Crime No. 316/2024, registered at Police Station : Malkharoda, District- Sakti, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 4 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan