1 2025:CGHC:2479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 378 of 2025 Suraj Singh S/o Jitendar Singh (Wrongly Mentioned As Jitendra In Impugned Order) Aged About 20 Years R/o - Behind Jai Durga School, Naim Nagar, Durgapur, Police Station - Faridpur, District - Bardhaman, West Bengal ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Pandri, Raipur (As Per Challan) District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2025 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. 199/2024 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that Kishore Rajdev, Director of Rajdev Steels and Alliance Pvt. Ltd., filed a written complaint at ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.16 12:14:07 +0530 2 Pandari Police Station on June 13, 2024. He alleged that his wife, Sudha Rajdev, a commission agent, was defrauded of Rs. 43,23,233/- by Sanjay Singh, who claimed to represent Parasnath Re-rolling Mills. An investigation revealed that the mobile number used by Sanjay Singh was registered to Abhinav Doganiya. Further investigation led to the discovery of a bank account linked to Sushma Kumari, which was allegedly being used by the accused/applicant. The applicant was subsequently arrested, and the police registered offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC (Crime No. 199/2024). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the applicant worked part- time under Abhinav Doganiya, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. The applicant did not receive any wrongful gain. Additionally, Abhinav Doganiya used the applicant's mobile number, 6294800018. He further submits that the investigation in this matter has been completed, and a final report has been submitted to the concerned Court. Notably, the prosecution's charges do not implicate the applicant. He further submits that there is no recovery made from the possession of the present applicant and he is in jail since 29.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge - sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the 3 present case. He submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused, namely, Abhinav Doganiya and Sushma Kumari are allegedly involved in a fraud of Rs. 43,23,233/- therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 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 there is no recovery made from the possession of the possession of the present applicant and the case of the present applicant is distinguished from the case of the other co-accused persons, namely, Abhinav Doganiya and Sushma Kumari. Moreover, the fact that in the present bail application the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 29.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Suraj Singh, involved in Crime No. 199/2024 registered at Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his 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 4 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make 5 an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months from the receipt of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce 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 Abhishek