1 2025:CGHC:46400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7192 of 2025 Surendar @ Surindar Singh S/o Amrik Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Hariom Nagar Princess Price, Room No-D, 301, Police Station Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.09.2025 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. 371/2025, registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 22.08.2025, complainant Inderjit Singh lodged a written complaint at Basantpur, alleging inter-alia that in the Police Station year 2015 he met Sandeep Singh Rajput in Macau, from which his acquaintance and friendship developed, and conversations started taking place through mobile. During this period, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Sandeep Singh's father Surendar Singh Rajput/present applicant, told him to do business under the name of his firm S.T. Jewellers, and by deceit promised assurance of giving him an amount ranging from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per month from the said business. On repeated persuasion by present applicant, the complainant deposited into the account of present applicant, owner of S.T. Jewellers, from his Punjab National Bank account and from his mother Smt. Harjinder Kaur's Punjab & Sindh Bank account, a total of Rs.37,26,650/- between 06.09.2021 to 30.10.2023; into the account of Tajinder Kaur Rajput at Bank of Baroda, a total of 15,00,000/- between 10.05.2022 to 19.05.2022; into the account of Sukhmandeep Singh Rajput at Punjab National Bank, a total of Rs.21,11,000/- between 23.01.2023 to 11.07.2023; into the UPI of Sandeep Singh Rajput, Rs.14,470/-; into the account of Jaswinder Singh at Punjab National Bank, on 27.01.2023, Rs.1,50,000/-; into the account of Gurudev Singh at IDFC First Bank, Rs.9,09,000/-; into the account of Firoz Ali at HDFC Bank, on 19.08.2023, Rs.2,50,000/-; into the account of S.T. Jewellers at Punjab National Bank, Rs.41,49,000/-; and into the Post Office account, on 19.05.2022, Rs.15,50,000/-. Thus, the above-mentioned accused persons, acting in concert, fraudulently deceived the complainant by giving a false pretext of doing business in S.T. Jewellers and committed cheating to the tune of approximately Rs.1,53,60,067/-. On the said complaint of the complainant, the crime was registered against the applicant. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the transactions were made in the year 2021 to 2023, but 3 the complaint lodged in the year 2025, thus there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR, and the complainant did not mention any reason regarding the said delay in lodging FIR. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2025 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 and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, and the charge-sheet has not been filed in this case. It is also submitted that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, the transactions were made in the year 2021 to 2023, but the complaint lodged in the year 2025, thus there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR, and the complainant did not mention any reason regarding the said delay in lodging FIR, the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. 7. Let applicant, Surendar @ Surindar Singh, involved in Crime No. 371/2025, registered at Police Station – Basantpur, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court 4 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 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 Rajshekhar