1 2025:CGHC:28614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4507 of 2025 Shyam Sundar Jangde S/o Ram Pyare Jangde Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mudwabhatha, P.S. Kosir, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Vasundhara Vihar Colony, Govardhanpur, P.S. Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06 .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 - 213/2024, registered at Police Station – Lailunga, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of Indian Penal Code. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 12:43:18 +0530 2 2. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant who has lodged the written report against the Eliazer Kumar along with the other accused, the Eliazer Kumar is a Director of the company Dream Alfa Omega Multi Trade Service Pvt Ltd. and have promised to the complainant that 50% of the loan will be given to the borrower and 10% will be given as an agent and 40% will be given to the said company if finance will be provided from the Bank by the company and also promised the liability to repay the loan amount upon the said company and after providing finance amount from the bank, the company will repay of financed loan on sometime and thereafter, the company has not provided repay of finance loan amount and the Director have embezzled the amount Rs. 81,34,937/- with the borrower/complainant based upon such complaint the police station has registered an offence under Section 420/34 of I.P.C. 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 submitted that though the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Eliazer Kumar who is the Director of the company and taken money from the complainant and others bail application has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No 4181/2025 vide order dated 29.05.2025 but the co-accused, namely, Anita Beg who is the wife of the Eliazer Kumar and one co-accused, Sanjay Ram has already been granted bail by this Court passed in MCRC Nos. 2773/2025 and 3516/2025 vide order dated 23.04.2025 and 07.05.2025 respectively. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents but one FIR bearing No. 0074/2025 registered at P.S. Sarangarh for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC against him. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of 3 bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant along-with co-accused persons have embezzled the amount of Rs. 81,34,937/- with the borrower/complainant, hence, 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 though the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Eliazer Kumar who is the Director of the company and taken money from the complainant and others, bail application has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No 4181/2025 vide order dated 29.05.2025 but the co-accused, namely, Anita Beg who is the wife of the Eliazer Kumar and one co-accused, Sanjay Ram has already been granted bail by this Court passed in MCRC Nos. 2773/2025 and 3516/2025 vide order dated 23.04.2025 and 07.05.2025 respectively, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, but one FIR bearing No. 0074/2025 registered at P.S. Sarangarh for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC against him, further the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, he is is in jail since 14.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, and the case of the present applicant is distinguished from the case of co-accused, namely, Eliazer Kumar. therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Shyam 4 Sundar Jangde, involved in Crime No - 213/2024, registered at Police Station – Lailunga, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 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 5 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti