1 2025:CGHC:47785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6632 of 2025 Purshottam Tiwari S/o Shri Devi Prasad Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Gokuldham, Uslapur, Thana- Sakri, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Lines Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Adv. as well as Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 1212/2024, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 600/2025, vide order dated 11.03.2025, on merits. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Nitish Kumar Bhardwaj, lodged a written report against the co-accused Gurushankar Divya and Kapil Goswami with the allegation that they have taken money from him for securing job and during the investigation it was alleged against the present applicant that he has typed the forged joining letters on the instructions of Kapil Goswami and received commission and also provided two seal to the co-accused Kapil Goswami therefore his memorandum statement was record and he was arrested and after completion of investigation the charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground for filling of the second bail application is that the the main allegation levelled against the co-accused persons regarding making false promises and providing forge joining letter and even in the FIR, the name of the applicant is not mentioned. He further submits that only allegation against the applicant is for typing the joining letter and receiving commission and seizure of Rs. 20,000/- from home however there is no direct or indirect proof that the said amount is received as commission. He further submits that there are total four cases have been registered against the applicant in the same day and in out of two cases, the applicant has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. He further submits that the the present applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused 3 persons and in the present case, co-accused Rajendra Palange has already been enlarged on bail in three cases of similar nature by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025 in MCRC Nos. 189/2025, 5962/2025 and 5864/2025 and further co-accused namely Gurushankar Divya, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7179/2025, vide order dated 09.09.2025 and the present applicant is in jail since 10.12.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is alleged against the applicant that he prepared forged joining letters at the instance of co-accused Kapil Goswami, received commission therefrom, and also supplied two seals to the said co-accused and further the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 600/2025, vide order dated 11.03.2025, on merits and the new ground for filing 4 of the second bail application is that four cases have been registered against him on the same day for similar offences, out of which in two cases the applicant has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and further, from perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR was lodged against the co-accused Gurushankar Divya and Kapil Goswami alleging that they had collected money from the complainants on the pretext of providing employment and got forged joining letters typed by the present applicant on the instructions of Kapil Goswami, for which the applicant received commission and also provided two seals to the co-accused Kapil Goswami. However, considering the fact that co- accused Gurushankar Divya has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7179/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025, and other co-accused namely Sanjay Das Manikpuri and Rajendra Palange have also been enlarged on bail by this Court, and further the case of the applicant is better than the case of co-accused and he is in custody since 10.12.2024 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to allow the present application. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Purshottam Tiwari, involved in Crime No. 1212/2024, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), of BNS, 2023, 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 5 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 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. 10. 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