1 2025:CGHC:27418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4713 of 2025 Mayank Jain S/o Sushil Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nahanda, P.S. Devri, Distt. Balod At Present R/o Ward No. 2 Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chilhati District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06 .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 they have been arrested in connection with Crime No - 90/2024, registered at Police Station – Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.25 11:46:00 +0530 2 2. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant i.e. Pen Singh Kanwar had purchased 139 sacks of approximately 51 quintals of paddy in the month of May of the summer Rabi crop year 2024 from the accused Mayank Jain, for which the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- for approximately 51 quintals of paddy was not paid. The applicant was repeatedly evading the said amount. After that, the accused also purchased paddy from other people of the village and other nearby farmers and did not pay a total of Rs. 7,35,546/-. The applicant then absconded leaving the rented house by switching off his mobile and after preparing the absconding panchnama on the basis of call details, he was arrested. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution only based upon memorandum and seizure which is very weak type evidence and also not admissible part of evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 16.03.2025 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 opposes the bail application of the applicant. 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 the that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet 3 has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 16.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Mayank Jain, involved in Crime No - 90/2024, registered at Police Station – Chilhati, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his 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 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 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 their 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 4 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 thems 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