1 2025:CGHC:46523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7273 of 2025 Mukesh Sahu S/o Late Ratiram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Dhegunala Korba, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Azad Chowk, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Anshul Singhania, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.09 .202 5 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. 72/2025, registered at Police Station – Azad Chowk, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, 340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Hemlata Sahu, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Azad Chowk on 13.03.2025, alleging that the accused, Mukesh Sahu, falsely introduced himself as a clerk in S.E.C.L. and, under the pretext of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.12 10:48:17 +0530 2 marriage and offering her a job, fraudulently obtained Rs.5,38,000 from her via PhonePe. However, he neither arranged the job nor returned the money. Based on this complaint, Crime No. 72/2025 was registered under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation commenced. During the investigation, it was revealed that the applicant/accused similarly defrauded another complainant, Kuleshwari Hirwani, of Rs.2,47,630 in multiple online transactions under the pretext of employment. Likewise, another complainant was cheated of Rs.28,78,500 in the same manner. Written complaints in these cases were lodged on 02.06.2025 and 22.07.2025, respectively, at the same police station. The applicant/accused was arrested, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 11.08.2025. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and no recovery is pending from the applicant, as all alleged transactions were online through PhonePay and the Police have already collected the necessary evidence, including bank statements and digital records, during the investigation. He further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2025 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 application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has 3 been filed in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the Objector opposes the bail application and submits that proper and sufficient evidence has been collected during the investigation, which clearly indicates that the applicant/accused has committed the offence. He further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and has committed similar offences against several individuals. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 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 applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Mukesh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 72/2025, registered at Police Station – Azad Chowk, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336, 338, 340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 4 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 applicants 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 5 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 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 Preeti