1 2025:CGHC:28582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4940 of 2025 Bharat Lal Pradhan S/o Late Shri Udeyram Pradhan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mahloi, P.S. Pusour, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh alongwith Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/06/2025 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. 126/2025 registered at Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant had filed the complaint against Bharatlal Pradhan, Sudama Pradhan, and Abhishek Pradhan, residents of Mahloi village, regarding a cheating AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 case where they allegedly took Rs.2,75,000/- online via PhonePe and Rs.75,000/- in cash by promising a job at NTPC. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against Sudama Pradhan and Bharatlal Pradhan under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC at Jute Mill Police Station. One accused, Bharat Pradhan, was arrested and investigated, while Sudama Pradhan is reportedly absconding. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused on 03.06.2025. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that applicant is father of co- accused, who is the main accused, namely, Sudama Pradhan and is absconding, co-accused / son had taken money from the complainant Rs.2,75,000/- via PhonePe in his account and Rs.75,000/- in cash for providing job in NTPC, so far as present applicant is concerned, neither any money has been received from his possession nor he has received any amount in his account. The applicant is in jail since 15.04.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that applicant alongwith another co-accused, who is his son had committed fraud with the applicant, they took Rs.2,75,000/- via PhonePe and Rs.75,000/- in cash from 3 the complainant for providing job in NTPC, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 15.04.2025, the fact that though applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant by taking money for providing job in collusion with his son, but the main accused in the present case is co-accused, Sudama Pradhan, who is son of the applicant and has received Rs.2,75,000/- via PhonePe in his account and Rs.75,000/- in cash, there is no seizure of money has been made from the applicant and the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused / son, who received money in his account and is still absconding, so far as criminal antecedent of applicant is concerned, applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case, accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. 7. Let the Applicant-Bharat Lal Pradhan, involved in Crime No. 126/2025 registered at Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, 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:- 4 (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 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil