1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5355 of 2025 1 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Komal Das Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o 244 Shayam Nagar, Thethewar Para, Ward No. 26, Camp-2, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Correct As Per Trial Court Order A/3) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. Heard on the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023). 2. This is the third bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 18.02.2024 in connection with Crime No. 188 of 2023 registered at VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 11:11:49 +0530 2 P.S. Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC. 3. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.06.2024, passed in MCRC No. 3380 of 2024 with liberty to revive his prayer for bail after examination of material witnesses. The second bail application of the applicant has also been dismissed on 12.06.2025, passed in MCRC No. 4102 of 2025 on the ground that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive after examination of material witnesses, but no witnesses has been examined till that day and there is no change of circumstances. 4. The prosecution's case is that, the complainant Potram Khare lodged a report against the present applicant that he withdrew Rs. 9,55,620/- from his bank account through credit card keeping him in trust and influence. On 29.06.2023, at the time of withdrawing the money from ATM, he came to know about balance of his bank account and upon inquiry, it was found that the applicant has committed the offence and then he has been arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no sufficient material in the charge sheet against the applicant that he withdrew the amount from the bank account of the complainant through the credit card. The applicant is in jail since 18.02.2024 and till date only one witness i.e. the complainant has been examined. 3 The offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, there is no minimum sentence provided for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there is no considerable progress in trial, and therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51 (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that, there is sufficient evidence against the applicant in the charge sheet that the complainant is a retired employee, he was kept in assurance by the applicant and withdrew the amount from his bank account through credit card. Two bail applications of the applicant have already been rejected by this Court and when his second bail application was rejected on 12.06.2025, the complainant Potram Khare has already been examined on 09.04.2025 and this Court has rejected the application considering that there is no change in circumstances. Within 15 days of rejection of the second bail application, the present third bail application has been filed and still there is no change in circumstances and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation against 4 the applicant, further considering that two bail applications of the applicant has been rejected and after rejection of the second bail application on 12.06.2025, within 15 days there is no further change in circumstance as the PW-1/Potram Khare has already been examined on 09.04.2025, the manner in which the retired employee has been cheated, I am not inclined to admit this third bail application of the applicant. 9. 9. The facts and consideration in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable to the facts of the present case and no benefit can be extended to the applicant from that judgment. 10. Accordingly, the present third bail application filed by the applicant Surendra Kumar Sahu is rejected at the motion stage itself. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved