1 2025:CGHC:5339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 246 of 2025 Shubham Jain S/o Late Munesh Jain Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Bazar Para Village Puri P.S. Charama District Kanker (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/01/2025 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. 138/2024, registered at Police Station – Charama, District- North Bastar, Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complaint, Om Prakash Teta, appeared at Charama police station and submitted a written complaint against the accused, Narendra Sinha, stating RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.30 10:57:04 +0530 2 that Narendra Sinha and Nirmesh Bhojwani deceived him by luring him with different schemes. They fraudulently financed three motorcycles worth Rs. 2,57,499/- in his name through various finance companies and then took the motorcycles with them and sold them to other persons, thereby committing fraud. During the investigation, the accused was taken into custody, and his memorandum statement was recorded. In his statement, the accused admitted to committing the crime in collusion with the applicant/accused and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the complaint, Om Prakash Teta has lodged report against the accused, Narendra Sinha, for fraudulently financing a two-wheeler in the name of the applicant and cheating him, but in the aforementioned First Information Report, the applicant has not mentioned the name of the accused anywhere, which clearly indicates that the accused has no direct or indirect involvement in the said case. He also submits that one of the co-accused person, namely, Gopendra Pal has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 in MCRC No. 7690/2024 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, further the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents in which he has already been granted bail, the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant involved in a forgery financing a two wheeler and cheating with the complainant, further the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 17.11.2024, the fact that though the applicant involved in a forgery financing a two wheeler and cheating with the complainant, but one of the co-accused person, namely, Gopendra Pal, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 in MCRC No. 7690/2024 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, he has 02 criminal antecedents in which he has already been granted bail and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant- Shubham Jain, involved in Crime No. 138/2024, registered at Police Station – Charama, District- North Bastar, Kanker, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on 4 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 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 5 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan