1 2025:CGHC:42195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4612 of 2025 • Brijmohan Dubey S/o Ganesh Prasad Dubey Aged About 35 Years Near Our Grocery Store, Sikola Basti, Jayanti Nagar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. T.K.Jha, Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/08/2025 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.225/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District-Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318 (3) & 318(4) of BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Piyush Tripathi made a complaint to the city kotwali durg with the allegations that he has engaged the applicant (who is his brother in VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.22 11:08:45 +0530 2 law). In his shop (Sankalp Pharmacy Housing Board complex Durg) on a monthly salary of Rs 6000/- per month. He reposed faith on the applicant being his brother in law. The complainant came to know that the applicant has constructed a house for which he has taken a loan of Rs 10 lakhs, whereas the actual cost of the house may be Rs 25-27 lakh. Since the financial condition of the applicant was not sound therefore he has engaged applicant to give him financial support being his near relative. It is allegation of the complainant that the applicant used to deposit the amount of payment of medicines which were sold from his shop. It is alleged that the applicant has taken about Rs 40 lakhs from this improper method. On this complainant police has registered FIR No.225/2025. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in crime in question. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that present applicant is a brother- in-law of the complainant and there was no element of cheating, as their relationship is of ‘Jija & Sala’. He further submits that sister of applicant has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police Durg and SHO Gorakhpur (Jabalpur) on 20.08.2024 and 18.03.2025 respectively, against the complainant for torturing her. He also submits that FIR has been lodged after four years of the incident, he is in jail since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has taken Rs.40 lakhs from the 3 complainant fraudulently, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicant and from the perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the applicant is a brother-in-law of the complainant and their relationship is of ‘Jija & Sala’ and also considering the fact that sister of the present applicant has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police Durg and SHO Gorakhpur (Jabalpur) on 20.08.2024 and 18.03.2025 respectively, against the complainant for torturing her, applicant is in jail since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – Brijmohan Dubey involved in Crime No.225/2025 registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318 (3) & 318(4) of BNS., be released on bail on their 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. 4 (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 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 for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali