1 2025:CGHC:10933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 351 of 2025 Jhulup Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Village Dholband, P.S. Padampur, District – Bargarh, Odisha ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Saraipali, District – Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant :Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. For Objector :Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/03/2025 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. 264/2024, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the FIR of the Maretiya incident was lodged by one Vikram Nareitya on PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 08/10/2024 inter-alia on the allegations that, he had entered into an agreement with one Anant Kumar Mishra and Krishna Prasad Mishra for purchase of the land situated at Orissa admeasuring 100 acres for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acres. The agreement was executed on 25/05/2024 and co-accused Shishupal Pradhan and Jhulup Sahu were attesting witness of the agreement. It has been further alleged that the cheque of Rs. 3lacs -3 lacs were paid to the land owners through blank cheques and Rs. 90,000/- cash waspaid to Shishupal, but till 08/10/2024 no registered sale deed has been executed. The allegations against the present applicant are that, he had introduced Jhulup Kumar Sahu and Shishupal Pradhan. It has been alleged that the applicant and two other persons have cheated the complainant. It has been further alleged that the present applicant and other two witnesses of the agreement have insisted the complainant. 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 submits that the co-accused, namely, Narendra Kumar Juneja has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1264 of 2024 and the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Shishupal Pradhan, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1295/2024. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 09.12.2024 and trial 3 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 opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused person. 5 Learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the bail application of the present application is liable to be rejected. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that co-accused, namely, Narendra Kumar Juneja has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1264 of 2024 and the similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Shishupal Pradhan, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1295/2024, but no criminal antecedent pending against him and the charge-sheet has not been filed and he is in jail since 09.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - 4 Jhulup Sahu, involved in Crime No. 264/2024, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (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 5 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. 9 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