1 2025:CGHC:977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9124 of 2024 Shreyansh Jain S/o Sanjay Jain Aged About 23 Years R/o 407, Vande Matram Apartment, Model Town, Nehru Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Supela, Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. Genera. For Objector : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 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. 419/2024 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the applicant borrowed Rs. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.08 11:30:55 +0530 2 56,00,000/- for business and share investments, promising to return the amount with substantial profits. However, the applicant failed to do so to the complainant's satisfaction. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case on the charges leveled against him, solely to harass him. However, the truth is that the applicant borrowed an amount at 10% interest from the complainant and provided 8-10 blank cheques as security. The applicant repaid Rs. 24,30,000/- of the borrowed amount, but the complainant remained unsatisfied. Seeking additional profit, she began harassing the applicant, openly abusing him near his residence, which was overheard by neighbors. This incident led to the applicant's father suffering a fatal heart attack on February 1, 2024. He further submits that the applicant never intended to default on the borrowed money or abscond. However, due to market recession, he was unable to make payments at regular intervals. Despite this, the complainant, leveraging his political influence and power, repeatedly harassed the applicant. Seeking additional profit, the complainant made false allegations against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present 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 in the present case. 3 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents of the similar nature, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore,he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that that there is dispute between the parties regarding money, in which the applicant has repaid Rs. 24,30,000/- to the complainant. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 20.05.2024, and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Shreyansh Jain, involved in Crime No. 419/2024 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing 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. 4 (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 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. 9. 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