1 2025:CGHC:1779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 228 of 2025 1. Jogendra Yadav @ Jugnu Yadav S/o Late Mayaram Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Lal Bagh Housing Board Colony, Jagdalpur, Bastar (CG) 2. Uttam Yadav S/o Late Mayaram Yadav Aged About 50 Years, Resident of Behind Utkal Bhawan, Mahadev Ghat, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Kotwali, Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/01/2025 1 The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 5/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.11 13:59:11 +0530 2 Sections 409, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. ( In short ‘IPC’). 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Venkateshwar Rao lodged a written complaint stating that the applicants acting as agent have collected huge amount of money from the complainant and various other persons and when they asked to return the amount, the applicant informed them that they have lost all the money in gambling. In this manner, they have duped the informant and various other persons for a sum amounting to rupees three crores. Based on the aforesaid information, FIR was lodged and the applicants were arrested. Hence, this bail application. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that on the memorandum of the applicants only mobile have been seized and there is no recovery of any amount from the applicants. He further submits that no any other FIR has been lodged by other complainants and also there is an unexplained inordinate delay of two and a half years in lodging the FIR, further the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 03.01.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in 3 the present case. He further submitted that the informant Venkateshwar Rao lodged a written complaint stating that the applicants acting as agent have collected huge amount of money from the complainant and various other persons and when they asked to return the amount, the applicant informed them that they have lost all the money in gambling , therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that on the memorandum of the applicants only mobile have been seized and there is no recovery of any amount from the applicants, further the fact that no any other FIR has been lodged by other complainants and there is an unexplained inordinate delay of two and a half years in lodging the FIR, further the applicants has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 03.01.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Jogendra Yadav @ Jugnu Yadav and Uttam Yadav, involved in Crime No. 5/2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence 4 punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. ( In short ‘IPC’), be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails 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 5 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 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 them 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