1 2025:CGHC:22100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3859 of 2025 Gitesh Gill S/o Chainsingh Gill Aged About 42 Years R/o E.W.S. 516, Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Vaishali Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhilai- 3, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.05.2025 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. 44/2025 registered at Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has made written complaint before the concerned police station stating therein that he is the proprietor of Shri Shyam Chemical Company which is situated at -12/I, Bhari Industrial Area Hathkhoj Bhilai, District Durg PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.15 16:34:44 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh where accused person Ravindra Singh son of Bakshish Singh was working as marketing and recovery in the such Chemical Company since 6 years and the said company was sold the Aluminum material total amounting of Rs. 44,48,377/- (Rs. 6,57,914/- of Maitalix Company Raipur, Rs. 11,35,211/- of Personal transaction and Rs. 26,55,252/- of R.C. Aluminum Company Hathkhoj) and his employee Ravindra Singh have recovered such amount of Rs. 44,48,377/- with the help of other accused persons in absence of the complainant without giving any knowledge to the complainant and his employee Ravindra Singh has not returned said amount to the complainant. Based upon the written complaint, the police have registered the offence under Sections 408, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicant for the aforesaid offences on the basis of merely suspicious. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further submits that the incident took place during from 25.04.2024 to 30.04.2024 and the case is registered on 31.01.2025, the looking to the facts, there is delayed FIR by the complainant in this case, which is very long delay in this case and the applicant was not involved in any kind of crime. The present applicant has neither obtained any amount of subject amount nor received any benefit of amount of the complainant nor committed any aforesaid offences as alleged by the prosecution against him. The present applicant has not played any role about transaction of subject amount because 3 there is transaction of the subject amount has done in between complainant and his employee Ravindra Singh and only on the basis of friendship of his employee Ravindra Singh, the present applicant has falsely been implicated in connection of this crime, but the applicant has not committed any aforesaid offences. He further submits that only on the basis of merely suspicious and memorandum statement, the applicant has falsely been implicated in this crime without any proper investigation has been done by the concerned police authorities and the applicant is in jail since 05.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may likely to take some more time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that so far as other co-accused persons who have been released on bail are concerned, their names were not mentioned in the FIR and the applicant along with co-accused talk to the complainants by introducing them as the owners of the company and together the accused have defrauded Sudarshan Metallics Company, Raipur of Rs.6,57,914/-, personal transactions of Rs.11,35,211/- and RC Aluminium Company, Hathkhoj of Rs. 26,55,252/-, total amounting to Rs. 26,55,252/-, total amounting to Rs. 44,48,377-, further considering the fact that the bail application of the co-accused namely Ravinder Singh has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3652/2025, vide order dated 09.05.2025 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused as such, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and 4 gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant along with co-accused talk to the complainants by introducing them as the owners of the company and together the accused have defrauded Sudarshan Metallics Company, Raipur of Rs.6,57,914/-, personal transactions of Rs.11,35,211/- and RC Aluminium Company, Hathkhoj of Rs. 26,55,252/-, total amounting to Rs. 44,48,377-, further considering the fact that the bail application of the co-accused namely Ravinder Singh has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3652/2025, vide order dated 09.05.2025 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused hence, the involvement of the present applicant in crime in question, appears to be reasonable therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant- Gitesh Gill, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS involved in Crime No. 44/2025 registered at Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 420, 34 of IPC, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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