1 2025:CGHC:30185 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5167 of 2025 • Goverdhan Das Agrawal S/o Late Tekchand Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o C-165, Amrapali, Near Baikunthram, Police Station Jamul, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/07/2025 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.48/2025 registered at Police Station Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh (C.G.) under Section 316(3) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution is in a nutshell that, the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 17.04.2025 in respect of the incident alleged to have been occurred on 12.04.2025 for the offences punishable under VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2 Section 3(5) 316(3)5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The F.I.R. was lodged on the instance of one Amit Jauhari working as Assistant Manager in JSW Steel Company. It has been alleged the co-accused (employees of JSW Steel Company) have prepared forge documents regarding entry of vehicle bearing registration no. CG12-BG-9175 and thereby committed loss to the company to the tune of Rs. 21,41,024/-. That, as per the F.I.R., Anunjay Aman S/o. Nitogopal Sinha (employee of the company), Pushkar Raj Tiwari (Employee of the company), Jafran Khan (Driver of the vehicle) and the present applicant Goverdhan Das. ANNEXURE A/2 is the Copy of the F.I.R. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, only on the basis of merely suspicious and memorandum statement of the driver namely Jarfan Khan. He further submits that the applicant was not named in the FIR, nothing has been seized from the present applicant. He also submits that there is no material available has been collected by the investigating agency to show that the entire material was unloaded on the open plot and the applicant has purchased the same or the plot was belongs to the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 27.05.2025 and aged about 63 years old, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that applicant has no criminal antecedent but looking to the conduct of the applicant he is not entitled for grant of bail. 3 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 and considering the fact that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, he is in jail since 27.05.2025, looking to the age of the present applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Let the Applicant – Goverdhan Das Agrawal involved in Crime Crime No.48/2025 registered at Police Station Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh (C.G.) under Section 316(3) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023., be released on bail on his furnishing 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. 4 (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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali