1 2025:CGHC:377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7880 of 2024 Saurabh Verma S/o Harender Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 17, Street No. 12, Dayalpur, District Delhi 94 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Makdi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathore, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 67/2023 registered at Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. According to the First Information Report, complainant Gend Singh Netam lodged a report on December 14, 2023, stating that in January 2020, he received a call from co-accused Ankush Jain, ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.06 18:37:32 +0530 ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.06 18:37:55 +0530 2 who impersonated a Crime Branch Delhi ofÏcer. Ankush Jain inquired if the complainant had deposited money in an insurance company, and upon confirmation, claimed that the company was fraudulent and had been raided. Ankush Jain informed the complainant that the company's owner, Rajendra Kumar, would contact him. Rajendra Kumar called the complainant and inquired about the deposited amount (approximately Rs. 30-35 lakhs), and asked how much the complainant expected as a refund. The complainant replied Rs. 60-70 lakhs, and Rajendra Kumar agreed to refund Rs. 50 lakhs. Ankush Jain then demanded money for stamp duty, instructing the complainant to deposit funds into a Union Bank account (no. 645802010030301). In December 2022, Tarlok Singh contacted the complainant, requesting money for an air ticket, and later, Yadav also demanded payment. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- as the final transaction in the said account. Consequently, the complainant was cheated under the pretext of refunding the insurance amount. On the basis of complaint an offence under Section 420 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. The applicant was arrested and after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that other co-accused persons, namely, Neha Verma, Manyendra Verma and Girish Babu have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 3 in MCRC Nos. 3549 of 2024, 3437 of 2024 and 4032 of 2024 respectively. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case. 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, further the fact that other co-accused persons, namely, Neha Verma, Manyendra Verma and Girish Babu have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 in MCRC No. 3549 of 2024, 3437 of 2024 and 4032 of 2024 respectively. Moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 12.01.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Saurabh Verma, involved in Crime No. 67/2023 registered at Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse 5 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce 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 Ashish/Bablu