1 2025:CGHC:39858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6264 of 2025 Rupesh Kumar Rajak S/o / Deeplal Rajak Aged About 31 Years R/o- Mayaganj Baksal Mistri Len, P.S.- Thana Barari, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Bilha, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2023, registered at Police Station : Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant along with other co-accused person namely Rupesh Kumar Rajak under the pretext of securing a job in the Railways allegedly received amount of Rs 5,40,000/- on different dates from the complainant & also forged a joining letter purportedly to support the false KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 representation, due to which an FIR was registered against the applicant & other co-accused for the alleged offence under Section 420 and 120B of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that the applicant along with co-accused stated to have taken money of Rs. 5,40,000/- from the complainant for providing job in Railways Group D which has been transferred in the account of the applicant. She further submits that though charges have been framed against the applicant but no prosecution evidence has been recorded and further the wife of the applicant has faced miscarriage during her pregnancy and there is no one else in the family to take care of her during this critical/Traumatic stage, the applicant, being the husband, is the only person who can provide care and medical support to her and also considering the fact that the co-accused namely Roma Kumari, who is wife of the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 4993/2025, vide order dated 23.07.2025 and the applicant is in jail since 29.12.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, she prays grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. The applicant along with co-accused stated to have taken money of Rs. 5,40,000/- from the complainant for providing job in Railways Group D, and further the said amount has been transferred in the account 3 of the applicant but later applicant failed to do the same. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 29.12.2024 and further the fact that though charges have been framed against the applicant but no prosecution evidence has been recorded and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. 7. Let applicant, Rupesh Kumar Rajak, involved in Crime No. 09/2023, registered at Police Station : Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC, be released on bail on furnishing 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 4 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal