1 2025:CGHC:7552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 520 of 2025 1. Mithlesh Kumar Das S/o Vijay Kumar Das Aged About 27 Years R/o Village House No. 113, Ward No. 01, Gonaiya, Post Charpa Prakhand, Police Station - Pathrol, Tehsil Madhupur, District - Devdhar, Jharkhand 2. Satyanand Kumar Das S/o Shri Jagan Mahra Aged About 26 Years R/o Charakmara, Post Charakmara, Police Station Sarath, District Devdhar Jharkhand ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - City Kotwali, Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2025 1 The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.342/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66 D I.T. Act. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.13 18:33:02 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Vasim, submitted a written complaint before the Police Station in Manendragarh and stated that on 07.11.2024 an unknown call came from the mobile number 6204763120 to his mobile number 9399606934. An unknown person said to him that he is a representative of Jio Company. An OTP has come to his mobile number and when he didn't tell the OTP number to that unknown person, thereafter on 08.11.2024 the network of the mobile was stopped. On 11.11.2024, he went to HDFC Bank for a withdrawal of money from his savings account. At that time, he came to know that Rs. 1,99,802/- was transferred from his mobile number, 9399606334, to a fraudulent mobile number, 9430983940. By this way, an unknown person cheated him out of 1,99,802/-. 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 further submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. Moreover, the complainant and other witnesses have turned hostile on the basis of the compromise resolved between the parties. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 12.12.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the trial is in progress and the statement of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and they also have turned hostile on the basis of the compromise resolved between the parties. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court concerned. As per the allegation levelled against the applicant that the applicant has cheated the complainant for a sum of 3 Rs. 1,99,802/- by committing fraud. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 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 trial is in progress and some of the witness’s statement has been recorded and they have turned hostile on the basis of compromise resolved between the parties, but looking to the nature of offence that the applicant has cheated the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,99,802/- by committing fraud, I am not inclined to allow this application. 7 Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Mithlesh Kumar Das and Satyanand Kumar Das involved in Crime No.342/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66 D I.T Act. is rejected at this stage. 8 Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9 OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- ((Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti