1 2025:CGHC:43659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6072 of 2025 Jamal Islam S/o Sirajul Islam Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Joypool, Pashchim Para, P.S. Dattapukur, District - North 24 Pargana, West Bengal ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Narayanpur, District – Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jintendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.08.2025 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. 25/2025, registered at Police Station – Narayanpur, District – Narayanpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66D of I.T. Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant namely Bhupendra Negi submitted a written complaint on 03.04.2025 to Police Station concerned and stated that the applicant and other co-accused upon RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 saying the higher officers of Royal Pentagon Auction House Bangalore and Kolkata Company cheated them by saying that their company have a valuable element namely copper iridium which is of cost more than of Uranium and which would be auctioned in international market on 03.02.2023 and the invested amount will be doubled by a day on 04.02.2023 and it will be monetized as gold bond and government bond. Thereafter believing the aforesaid company, the complainant made several investments on different dates which is a total amount of 34 lakh through mobile banking and UPI. After date 04.02.2023 the amount which has been transferred in account of the accused persons was not returned to the complainant. Thereafter co-accused persons again taken Rs. 19,01,499/- from the complainant for the purpose of depositing income tax to the government. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 53,01,499/- has been cheated by the accused persons. Thereafter the complainant made a written complaint against the present applicant and co-accused before the concerned police station. Hence, this application. 3. It is 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 applicant belongs to State of West Bengal, and the time was already granted to the learned State counsel to inform this Court about the criminal antecedents of the applicant, if any. It is further submitted that the complainant who has received money back has also filed an affidavit that he has no objection to the bail of the applicant. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 21.06.2025 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 opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the applicant belong to the State of West Bengal and there is no information about him criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant is said to have cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 53,01,499/-, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of 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 applicant belongs to State of West Bengal, and the time was already granted to the learned State counsel to inform this Court about the criminal antecedents of the applicant, if any. Furthermore, the complainant who has received money back has also filed an affidavit that he has no objection to the bail of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 21.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Jamal Islam, involved in Crime No. 25/2025, registered at Police Station – Narayanpur, District – Narayanpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 338 of the BNS, and Section 66D of I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 4 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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Rajshekhar