1 2025:CGHC:21451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3624 of 2025 Animesh Singh S/o Ashok Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Plot No. 3/9, Pandit Dindayal Puram, P.S. Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. For Objector :Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05 .202 5 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No – 210/2023, registered at Police Station – Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, the complainant Prateek Chopda PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.09 19:26:03 +0530 2 and the applicant were old friends and were known to each other and the applicant told the complainant that he is the owner of the Hotel Floret and he is doing a business of purchasing land and Paddy (Dhan) and upon that he asked for some money and in return of that the applicant will give profit of 2 percent and upon that the complainant paid him approximately Rs. 2,38,50,000/- to the applicant in different installments and the applicant did not return of Rs. 35,00,000/- back to the complainant and committed fraud and upon that the complaint the crime was registered against the applicant under Section 420 of IPC. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that complainant, namely, Prateek Chopda and one Hitesh Chaubey are friends and also Hitesh Chaubey is a witness in this crime and this FIR is counterblast of an FIR registered against Hitesh Chaubey and one Baba Chauhan filed by the applicant under Sections 385, 342, 506, 34 of the IPC for committing fraud with the applicant. He further submits that the matter related to civil transaction and it is given criminal colour only to harass and falsely implicate the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, in which he is on bail and there are some cases registered under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 28.04.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well Objector opposes the bail application of the applicant. He further submits that the complainant, Pratik Chopra, and the applicant had an old friendship 3 and acquaintance. The accused claimed to own the Foret Hotel and promised to give returns with a 2% profit on investments in land and paddy trading. Based on this, the complainant gave the accused/applicant a total of Rs. 2,38,50,000/- on various dates. However, the accused failed to return Rs. 35,00,000/-, committing fraud. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that complainant, namely, Prateek Chopda and one Hitesh Chaubey are friends and also Hitesh Chaubey is a witness in this crime and this FIR is counterblast of an FIR registered against Hitesh Chaubey and one Baba Chauhan filed by the applicant under Sections 385, 342, 506, 34 of the IPC for committing fraud with the applicant and further, the matter related to civil transaction, also considering the fact that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent in which he is on bail, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 28.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Animesh Singh, involved in Crime No – 210/2023, registered at Police Station – Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the 4 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse 5 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. 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 Preeti