-1- 2025:CGHC:3240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2202 of 2024 Shailesh Gupta S/o Late Ramgulam Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Pakradi, Police Chowki- Doura Police Station - Pasta District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Pasta, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.01.2025 1) This appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 65/2021 registered at Police Station- Pasta, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 476, 467, 468, & 471 of Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2) This is the 4 th bail application of the appellant. Earlier, the first bail application preferred by the appellant was dismissed on merits by this Court on 27.01.2022 passed in CRA No. 1434/2021; the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.03.2023 passed in CRA No. 289/2023 and the third bail application was dismissed with a direction to the concerned learned trial Court to conclude the trial and the appellant was set at liberty to revive his prayer if the trial is not concluded within a period of 6 months. 3) Brief facts of the present case are that the villagers of village Pakradi, namely, Shyamdhan and Ramdhan and others made a complaint to the effect that the present appellant collected their documents like Aadhaar Card & photographs, etc. and took KCC loan in their names. The amount deposited in the account of villagers was withdrawn in connivance with the other co-accused persons. On such a complaint, the police registered an FIR on 14.06.2021 against the appellant and other co-accused persons for the offences as stated above. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been in jail since 15.06.2021; there are 43 witnesses out of which only 21 witnesses have been examined; the co-accused has already -3- been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.10.2021 passed in MCRCA No. 1234/2021 by the co-ordinate Bench, therefore, the present appellant may be enlarged on bail. She would further submit that the appellant is ready to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Bharat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Vishwakarma and submit that the appellant is the main culprit who fabricated the documents of the innocent villagers to obtain the KCC Loan and later on, he opened KCC accounts without the consent of the villagers and grabbed Rs. 18,350/-, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7) Earlier, the first bail application preferred by the appellant u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail was dismissed on merits by this Court on 27.01.2022 passed in CRA No. 1434/2021; the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.03.2023 passed in CRA No. 289/2023 and the third bail application was dismissed with a direction to the concerned learned trial Court to conclude the trial and the appellant was set at liberty to revive his prayer if the trial is not concluded within a period of 6 months. In the present case, till October, 2024, only 21 witnesses have been examined out of 43 witnesses; the conclusion of trial may take time; the -4- co-accused, namely, Amol Gulshan Kujur, has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.10.2021 passed in MCRCA No.1234 of 2021; the appellant has been in jail since 15.06.2021. 8) In the matter of Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, [(2012) 8 SCC 795], the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that courts must verify if a prima facie case under the Act is made out. If the necessary ingredients for constituting the offense are not present upon a prima facie reading of the complaint, the bar under Section 18 would not be applicable, and courts can consider pre-arrest bail pleas on its merits. 9) It is well settled that pre-conviction detention has some punitive implications and the purpose of detention before conviction is to secure the presence at the trial and ensure that personal attendance in cases where necessity dictates the arrest and jail is the exception, not the rule. 10) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, in the opinion of this Court, the present is a fit case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 11) It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on the following conditions :- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, -5- threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. The observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim