1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6874 of 2025 • Vishwajeet Bhaumik S/o Delip Kumar Bhaumik Aged About 51 Years R/o Rama Velley Bilaspur Road, Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Sarkanda Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17/09 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this seventh bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 816/2019 registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Pavitra Sikka and his wife are the proprietors of M/s Bilaspur Casting Industries. Applicant Vishwajit Bhaumik by inducing the complainant that he would provide him with a bank loan obtained the property documents and Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.18 14:00:40 +0530 2 signature on loan papers and made use of the same in collaboration with co-accused Rahul Kumar for providing a loan from the bank. It is alleged that when the loan was not sanctioned then the applicant stopped conversation with the complainant saying that the loan had not been sanctioned. The complainant came to know about the loan sanctioned amounting to Rs. 68,90,000/-, when he received notice for recovery. It is further alleged that the said sanctioned amount has been deposited in the bank account of the applicant and his wife. On the basis of the above background, the offence has been registered against the applicant, his wife and co-accused Rahul Kumar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in connection with eight other criminal cases. One co-accused, namely Rahul Kumar, has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.01.2020 in MCRCA No. 1810/2019; therefore, the applicant may also be granted the benefit of bail. He next submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 712/2025 on 20.01.2025 had directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months despite that the trial has not concluded within the stipulated time and the trial is likely to take much more time for final conclusion as one witness has still remained to be examined and thereafter final hearing may also take considerable time. The applicant is in jail since 22.07.2020, i.e. for more than 5 years; therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant has nine pending criminal cases with 3 different crime numbers and police stations. Considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the material available on record, it is clear that the 6th bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 18.11.2024 in MCRC No. 7781/2024, and the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16002/2023. 7. After that, on 20.01.2025, the Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 712/2025 of the applicant has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with a direction to the trial Court that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 8. On the previous date of hearing of the case i.e. 09.09.2025, the status report of the case was called through the concerned Sessions Judge on three points. As per the status report received through the Concerned Sessions Judge, it is mentioned that due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer, the case for pending consideration was required to be transferred. On 04.09.2025, the case was received by the present Presiding Officer by transfer and only one prosecution witness has remained to be examined. Therefore, the prayer for extension of time to conclude the trial of the case could not be made before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, from the perusal of the record it came to know that the trial Court has sent a request letter before this Court in which prayer has been made for extension of time for further one month to conclude the trial, but there is no documents to show that the request for extension of time has been made before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the trial Court. 4 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that after the dismissal of the bail application of the applicant by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no change of circumstances to allow the present 7th bail application of the applicant; therefore, the present bail application of the applicant is dismissed. 10.However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.01.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 712/2025. The trial court should make a prayer for extension of time to the Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu