1 2025:CGHC:3132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 337 of 2025 Narendra Alias Pankaj S/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o N- 116/385, Badligaon, Police Station Samaypur Badli, District North West Delhi. --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O, P.S.-Sargaon District-Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/01/2025 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. 153/2024, registered at Police Station – Sargaon District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.10.2024, a written complaint was filed by the complainant, Bajrang Sahu, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.20 10:48:49 +0530 2 stating that on 04.10.2024, some unknown person had withdrawn approximately Rs.15,00,000/- from the joint account held by him and his brother. This transaction was communicated to him via SMS mobile alerts. Based on the complaint, an investigation was initiated with the assistance of the Cyber Cell, and a case was registered. During the course of the investigation, the applicant/accused, along with two other accused persons, was arrested on 26.10.2024. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the memorandum of the applicant/accused does not provide details about the procedure adopted to transfer the funds from the complainant’s account. The money transaction was made to the account of another co- accused, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present applicant/accused actively participated in the crime. Moreover, the amount was not withdrawn by the applicant/accused. In this regard, the police have not seized any CCTV footage from the ATM or bank. He also submits that a false seizure memo has been prepared by the police ofÏcers to implicate the applicant in the present crime along with other co-accused. He later submitted that in the present case, co-accused person, namely, Gulshana Alias Shalini has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in MCRC No. 8421/2024. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the charge- 3 sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail on the ground of parity. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that a written complaint was filed by the complainant, Bajrang Sahu, stating that on 04.10.2024, some unknown person had withdrawn approximately Rs.15,00,000/- from the joint account held by him and his brother. This transaction was communicated to him via SMS mobile alerts. Based on the complaint, an investigation was initiated with the assistance of the Cyber Cell, and a case was registered. During the course of the investigation, the applicant/accused, along with two other accused persons, was arrested. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the memorandum of the applicant/accused does not provide details about the procedure adopted to transfer the funds from the complainant’s account and the money transaction was made to the account of another co-accused, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present applicant/accused actively participated 4 in the crime, further the fact that the amount was not withdrawn by the applicant/accused, in this regard, the police have not seized any CCTV footage from the ATM or bank and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, further the co-accused person, namely, Gulshana Alias Shalini has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed in MCRC No. 8421/2024, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 7 Let applicant, Narendra Alias Pankaj, involved in Crime No. 153/2024, registered at Police Station – Sargaon District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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 his, 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 his in accordance with law. 8 However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 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 Rahul Dewangan