1 2025:CGHC:61081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9169 of 2025 Rekh Raj Khilwar S/o Shri Goverdhan Das Khilwar Aged About 36 Years R/o Mohndi, P.S. Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application 4led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 503/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District Durg, (C.G.) for the o9ence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1395 of 2025 vide order dated 19.02.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Nokhelal Sinha, lodged a written report on 05.10.2024 stating that he was preparing for the CGPSC examination. In February 2021, he came into contact with the present applicant and his wife. It is alleged that the applicant and his wife represented to the complainant that they could secure a government job for him and, believing their assurances, the complainant initially deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the presence of his friend Sachin Tandiya and thereafter continued to deposit a total amount of Rs.29,50,000/- into the applicant’s bank account. However, when no employment was provided, the complainant demanded a refund of the said amount, which was allegedly not returned. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the aforesaid report, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the present applicant and his wife, namely Bharti Khelwar. Hence, the present bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that this is the second bail application, as the earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1395 of 2025 vide order dated 19.02.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2024. He also submits that the charge-sheet was 4led before the learned competent Court on 04.12.2024. The matter was thereafter 4xed for arguments on charge on 07.12.2024 and 08.12.2024, and charges were framed on 08.08.2025. Subsequently, the case was listed on several dates for prosecution evidence; however, till the 4ling of the 3 present application, the prosecution evidence has not been completed and even the cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses remains pending, reBecting delay in the trial. Copies of the order-sheets of the Trial Court are annexed herewith as Annexure A/4. In light of these circumstances, he prays for enlarging the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the prosecution case clearly discloses that the applicant, in collusion with his wife, induced the complainant on the false assurance of securing a government job and dishonestly obtained a total sum of Rs.29,50,000/- from him. The initial deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- was made in the presence of a witness, and subsequent amounts were paid into the applicant’s bank account, establishing a clear dishonest intention. Despite repeated demands, the applicant failed to return the money, thereby committing o9ences involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. Considering the seriousness of the o9ence, the breach of trust, and the material collected during the investigation, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicant’s second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 1395/2025, was rejected on merits on 19.02.2025 with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously, and 4 as per the status of the trial the charge-sheet was 4led on 04.12.2024 and charges were framed on 08.08.2025. Despite several dates 4xed for prosecution evidence, it has not been completed and even cross- examination of the complainant and other witnesses is pending, reBecting undue delay in the trial, and also considering the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more 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 – Rekh Raj Khilwar, involved in Crime No. 503/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District Durg, (C.G.) for the o9ence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on his 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 4le an undertaking to the e9ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4xed 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 4xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 5 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 4xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, 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 4xed 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 suEcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against his in accordance with law. 9. OEce is directed to send a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan