1 2025:CGHC:33855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5599 of 2025 Girdhari Sahu @ Raja S/o Shri Naresh Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Urla Road, Atwari Bazar, Birgaon, P.S. Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Manipur, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate as well as Mr. Puranjay Bhatt, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Crime No. 149/2024, registered at Police Station Manipur Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 120B, 420, 489 (क), 489 (ख), 489 (ग) and 489 (ङ) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5260/2024. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the complainant has made written complaint to the concerned Police Station alleging that the accused persons were prepared forgery currency note for selling purpose and on the basis of said complaint the police have registered the offences under Sections 3328, 120B, 420, 489 (क). 489 (ख), 489(ग) and 489 (ङ) of the IPC against the other co- accuse persons and on the basis of memorandum statement the present applicants have been arrested. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, this Court has directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months, and thereafter, the said time period was extended by this Court in CRMP No. 2133/2025 on 09.07.2025, and the trial Court was granted further four month’s time for concluding the trial, but till date out of 17 witnesses only 3 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 16.05.2024. The applicant is in jail since 16.05.2024. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he 3 prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, namely, Girdhari Sahu @ Raja has one criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under Section 239 and 420 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant along with the co-accused persons were prepared forgery currency note for the purpose of selling, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, also considering the recovery which has been made from the applicant, namely, Girdhari Sahu @ Raja which is an amount of Rs. 16,500/- and a phone of Vivo company have been recovered, also considering the fact that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under Section 239 and 420 of the IPC, as such, he is a habitual offender and has committed offence of similar nature and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was already rejected by this Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant - Girdhari Sahu @ Raja, involved in Crime No. 149/2024, registered at 4 Police Station Manipur Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 120B, 420, 489(क), 489(ख), 489(ग) and 489(ङ) of the IPC, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar