1 2025:CGHC:4536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9087 of 2024 K. Maheshwar Rao S/o Late K. Nageshwar Rao Aged About 44 Years R/o B No. - F- 54, Duliyajan Police Station Duliyajana District- Dibrugarh (Assam), ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.01.2025 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. 179/2017 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005. 2. The prosecution's case is that complainant M. Mohan Rao, an agent ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.25 13:18:10 +0530 2 at RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure Limited's Supela branch, filed a complaint at Supela Police Station. He alleged that the company, promoted by its director Praveen Kumar Rohila, collected money from depositors but failed to return it after maturity. The company closed its ofÏce, cheating depositors. An FIR was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed. The case is pending before the Special Judge in Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant is not named in the present FIR, which shows that the the complainant did not lodge complaint against the applicant. He submits that the applicant was working as agent in the RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure Company Ltd. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 19.11.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before competent Court in the present matter. 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 and further the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and 3 has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and he is in jail since 19.11.2024, conclusion of the trial may take time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – K. Maheshwar Rao, involved in Crime No. 179/2017 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, 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:- (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 4 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 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 Abhishek