1 2025:CGHC:38841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6165 of 2025 Nikhil Kumar Chandrakar S/o Sant Ram Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years R/o Patan Pul Utai P/s Utai District Durg, C.G. (Surname Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In Charge Police Station- Balod, Distt. Balod, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, GA. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/08/2025 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.159/2025 registered at Police Station Balod Distt. Balod (C.G.) for GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.08.06 18:10:27 +0530 2 the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it has been alleged that in the year 2013, the co-accused Mrs. Santoshi Limje, who is the director of Kanha Public School, Balod, was living on rent in the complainant's house which was located at Kundroopara. During that time, the co- accused Pawan Chandrakar, who was associated with Kanha School, used to visit complainant often. Through the complainant, the co- accused Pawan Chandrakar and the complainant's husband got introduced. And from there, due to the regular visit between the complainant and the co-accused Santoshi Limje & Pawan Chandrakar development friendship. In our regular conversations, the co-accused Santoshi Limje and Pawan Chandrakar used to ask us where we invest our savings and told them that we save our money in the bank. They said that banks give very low returns and that we were losing opportunities. They told us that if we listened to their advice, we could earn much more from our money and they said they had a special plan and started convincing us to invest and after that they told us that they had a good connection in a trading company and mentioned a company called "Robo Traders." They assured us that there was no risk, and if we ever wanted our money back, we would get it within half an hour and they take personally guaranteed there would be no loss. Trusting the co-accused false promises, the complainant & her husband agreed to invest on or around 15th August 2022, complainant's husband gave Rs.3,04,006 in cash at our home. Later, the complainant also given Rs.7,12,500 in cash. Additionally, our relative Jagat Ram Sahu gave Rs.4,75,000, and another relative 3 Ashwani Kumar Sahu gave Rs.3,61,000 at different times. Altogether, we had given them Rs.18,52,506 in cash for trading. After waiting for a long time when no returns was coming from the investment, the complainant contacted the co-accused in 2023 to ask about our return from investment. The-accuseds kept giving false assurances that we would soon get double the amount. But even after many follow-ups, we have not received any money. Now, the co-accused namely Santoshi Limje & Pawan Chandrakar stopped answering the calls of the complainant, thereby the complainant felt cheated by Santoshi Limje and Pawan Chandrakar and they have cheated Rs.18,52,506 in the name of trading and making false promises. Thereafter offence under section 420 read with section 34 was registered of the present applicant and investigation was initiated. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the two co- accused who were also involved in the present case out of which one was lady namely Santoshi Limje and other person namely Pawan Chandrakar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.678/2025 on 8/05/2025 and so far as the applicant is concerned though the allegation have been levelled against him for cheating the complainant but the complainant has not raised any objection for grant of bail before the trial court as it is evident from Annexure A-3. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 15/07/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He would submit that charge sheet has not been filed in the present 4 case and the applicant is involved in another case also. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that two co-accused who were also involved in the present case out of which one was lady namely Santoshi Limje and other person namely Pawan Chandrakar have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.678/2025 on 8/05/2025 and so far as the applicant is concerned though the allegation have been levelled against him for cheating the complainant but the complainant has not raised any objection for grant of bail before the trial court as it is evident from Annexure A-3, period of detention of the applicant since 15/07/2025 and trial is likely to some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant-Nikhil Kumar Chandrakar, involved in Crime No.159/2025 registered at Police Station Balod Distt. Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of 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 5 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. 8. 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 gouri