1 2025:CGHC:35543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4969 of 2025 Tanuj Sarkar S/o Ravindra Sarkar Aged About 34 Years R/o Staff Colony, Quarter No. 1, Ward No. 09 Pakhanjur P.S. Pakhanjur, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 231/2024 registered at Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 and read with section 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.05.2024, complainant has given written complain with the averment that he is the director KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of Khanna transport and the present applicant with other co - accused met him stating that they are the directors of J.T.Agrotech Solution Boriakala Sadani Darbar Raipur C.G. and the company produces Pesticides Bio fertilizers for that they have to give them C.N.F For selling there product in chhattisgarh and then they in the name giving C.N.F. demanded 18 lakh rupees and gave 3 blank cheques and he transacted 18 lakh rupees through RTGS and after that the company director has not send his medicines and they stopped picking up his phone, committing fraud. Therefore, the aforesaid offence was registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation made against the applicant is that he has received amount in his account but the account is not in his name whereas the account was in the name of the company and certain amount received further nothing has been seized from the present applicant no amount not any document has been seized from the present applicants only on the basis of memorandum statement, the applicant was arrested. He further submits that there is no such evidence in the record to show that the applicant has taken or used any amount only the account was used which is in the name of company which has 3 more partners named as J.T. Agrotech Solution and it was also had certificate from Suhane Agro (India) pvt. Ltd. for selling Fertilizers. He also submits that the prosecution agency has not collected any material evidence to show that the present applicant has been played any roll in the concern crime and his bail application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the allegations are 3 serious in nature. He further submits that the co-accused named as Amit Kumar Das has been granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 and further the co-accused namely Sujay Sikdar, has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.3854/2025, vide order dated 27.06.2025, hence the applicant's case is also on similar footing he should also be grant bail as the principle of parity. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State also endorses the said submission as advanced by the counsel for the applicant and could not dispute the said fact. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 15.04.2025 and further the fact that the co-accused namely Sujay Sikdar has already been granted bail by this Court being MCRC No. 3854/2025 vide order dated 27.06.2025 and the case of the applicant is similar to that case of co-accused who has been granted bail and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Let the applicant – Tanuj Sarkar, involved in Crime No. 231/2024 registered at Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 and read with 4 section 34 of 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:- (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 5 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. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal