1 2025:CGHC:35709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5780 of 2025 Shersingh Sethiya S/o Shambhunath Sethiya Aged About 38 Years R/o Kuruspal, Pujaripara, P.S. Nagarnaar, District Bastar C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Farasgaon, District Kondagaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24/07/2025 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. 114/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Dinesh AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kumar Markam, lodged a written complaint alleging that the applicant purchased maize (corn) from him and approximately 35 other tribal farmers with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate. However, despite repeated demands, the applicant allegedly evaded and delayed payments, thereby committing the alleged offense. Pursuant to the complaint, the police registered an FIR, arrested the applicant, and subsequently filed a charge sheet before the competent court of law. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to business-related disputes stemming from delayed payments, which are civil in nature. These disputes have been maliciously given a criminal color with ulterior motives. Moreover, the dispute, if any, relates to an alleged failure to make payments in a commercial transaction involving the purchase of maize, which at best gives rise to a civil liability and does not constitute a criminal offense punishable under the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that mens rea is lacking in the present case, and there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the applicant had any fraudulent intention at the time of entering into the transaction. Since no recovery is to be made from the applicant and all relevant documentary evidence is already in the possession of the Investigating Officer, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. The applicant is in jail since 03.12.2024, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2022 & 2024 under the IPC, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is 3 likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant and other farmers, he allegedly purchased maize (corn) from them with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate, despite repeated demands, the applicant evaded and delayed payments, further the applicant has three criminal antecedents of identical nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant and other farmers, he allegedly purchased maize (corn) from them with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate, despite repeated demands, the applicant evaded and delayed payments, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has three criminal antecedents of identical nature, but considering the period of detention of the applicant since 03.12.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Shersingh Sethiya, involved in Crime No. 4 114/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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. (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. 5 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil