1 2025:CGHC:48334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7596 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Shiv Mandir Gali, Sitamani Korba, City Kotwali Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotwali, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.09 .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. 398/2019, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 469 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2019, alleged that the accused/applicant had prepared PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.19 19:58:31 +0530 2 a forged and fabricated letter bearing the forged seal and signature of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur. It is further alleged that the applicant sent this letter to his own address and circulated it on social media, claiming it to be genuine. The matter came to the complainant’s knowledge when a photograph of the applicant holding the said letter appeared in a newspaper and on social media platforms. Upon examining the letter, it was found to be forged, with discrepancies in style, format, and official markings, clearly indicating an attempt to mislead and falsely implicate the complainant and other jail officials. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, registered an FIR (Crime No. 398/2019) initially under Section 420 IPC. After investigation, Sections 468 and 469 IPC were added, and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 468, and 469 IPC before the learned trial Court. 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 allegation against the applicant/accused in the present case is that he sent a threatening letter bearing false and fabricated signatures and seals of the complainant and the Jail Authority, Central Jail, Bilaspur. However, it is surprising to note that the entire charge-sheet does not contain any report verifying the authenticity of the alleged seal and signature, nor is there any handwriting expert’s report to establish that the applicant/accused fabricated the same. This clearly reflects a deliberate omission on the part of the complainant and the investigating authorities. He 3 further submits that the actual story of the case is that, on 06.10.2018 the cousin brother of the applicant/accused was badly beaten by the Jail authorities inside the jail and he sustained serious injury, thereafter, he was referred to the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, by the Jail Doctor. He further submits that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedents in which he has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025 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 been filed in the present case. He further submits that the accused/applicant had prepared a forged and fabricated letter bearing the forged seal and signature of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the applicant has three previous criminal antecedent, in which he has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the 4 applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Mukesh Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 398/2019, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 469 of Indian Penal Code, 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 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 5 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 Preeti