1 2025:CGHC:2471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 365 of 2025 Dhartiputra S/o Rambir Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Komdo, Tahsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S.- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2025 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. 193/2024, registered at Police Station – Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that It is alleged that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, conspired to cheat the complainant, Mangleshwari Bai, by promising to secure RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.16 11:13:10 +0530 2 a job for her brother. In furtherance of this conspiracy, they allegedly took a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- from the complainant. Consequently, an FIR has been registered against the applicant. 3 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the main accused Jitendra Sahu has cheated the persons and he has received total amount of Rs. 35,83,000/- from different persons through Bank and cash and the applicant has executed documents but the money which was received by the applicant on the account of his wife, the same has been sent to Jitendra Sahu. He later submitted that in the present case, co-accused persons, namely, Anupama Bai and Jitendra Sahu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2024 and 02.01.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7916/2024 and 8992/2024 respectively. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 08.08.2024 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 and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He also submits that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, conspired to cheat the complainant, Mangleshwari Bai, by promising to secure a job for her brother. In furtherance of this conspiracy, they allegedly took a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- from the complainant, therefore, he is not entitled for 3 grant of bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 08.08.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, further the co-accused persons, namely, Anupama Bai and Jitendra Sahu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2024 and 02.01.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 7916/2024 and 8992/2024 respectively, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 7 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Dhartiputra, involved in Crime No. 193/2024, registered at Police Station – Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,and 120-B 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 4 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. (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 5 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 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