1 2025:CGHC:3651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8927 of 2024 Roshan Lal Mishra S/o Sitaram Mishra, Aged About 38 Years R/o Shiv Vihar Colony, Dunda, Police Statiojn- Mujgahan, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Mujgahan, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Roshan Lal Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 21/01/2025 1. This is the third bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.106/2023, registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 34 of IPC. 2. First & second bail application of the applicant were rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2023 & 03.07.2024 passed in MCRC Nos.5225/2023 & 4584/2024 respectively. Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.01.23 11:22:25 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution case, complainant Jhaman Lal Nirmalkar lodged a written report stating therein that the applicant impersonating himself as the Officer on Special Duty of Minister obtained a huge amount from him for providing job on the post of S.I. and Peon in Mantralaya. It is alleged that the applicant and his wife have also fraudulently obtained huge money from other persons. According to the written report, the applicant and his wife Tankeshwari have obtained 1.55 crore from different persons including the complainant for providing government jobs. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submits that while rejecting the second bail application, this Court had directed to concluded the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months. But till date only 3 witnesses have been examined and the trial has not been concluded. He submits that after rejection of the second bail application, only one witness has been examined who too has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. He submits that the case was listed before the trial Court for hearing 46 times and the applicant side was absent only 5 times. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.04.2023 and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement passed on 09.08.2024 in SLP (Criminal) No.8772 of 2024. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected twice and there is no change in the circumstances, therefore, the present bail application also deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 7. It is a case of cheating/fraud of about Rs.1.5 crores in which there are 16 victims out of which 3 have been examined. While rejecting the second bail application, this Court had directed to conclude the trial within 5 months but the trial could not be concluded. The reasons for delay in trial have been mentioned in the detailed status report which are; taking time for arguments on the charge, hearing on interim applications repeatedly, sometimes absence of witnesses, sometimes condolence meeting in the Bar Association, sometimes non-service of summons, absence of defence lawyer despite presence of witness, defence lawyer asking for time for cross-examination etc. In this situation, due to difference in facts, the applicant cannot be given the benefit of the said decision relied upon by the applicant side. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no change of circumstances made out by the counsel for applicant on the basis of which the applicant can be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the third Bail application is rejected. 10. However, the trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The prosecution, Police Administration and the defence side are expected to render full co- operation in concluding the trial at the earliest. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai