1 2025:CGHC:57810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9629 of 2025 Rajkamal S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No. 72, Mla Nagar Ward No. 19, Junapara, Korea, P.S. And Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station- Charcha, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This is the =rst bail application =led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 161/2025 registered at Police Station Charcha, District- Korea (C.G.) for the oBence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant had allegedly entered into a land purchase transaction with co-accused Shamim Khan, who assured him of selling the land. It is further RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 alleged that over a period of time, the complainant and his family members paid various amounts to Shamim Khan through cash and cheques for the purpose of executing the sale deed. Despite receiving the money, Shamim Khan allegedly did not execute the sale deed in favor of the complainant and continued giving false assurances. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Shamim Khan, in his memorandum statement, stated that for preparing the documents required for execution of the sale deed, he had paid some amount to co-accused Pradeep Kumar Thakur and Rs. 4,00,000/- to the present applicant, who allegedly assisted in preparing the documents. On the basis of this memorandum, Crime No. 161/2025 was registered at Police Station Charcha under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any oBence and he has been falsely implicated in oBence in question. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Pradeep Kumar Thakur has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9401/2025 and another co-accused person, namely, Raju Paswan has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 in MCRCA No. 1756/2025. He also submits that the applicant has two criminal cases which are pending and he is in jail since 08.10.2025, the charge-sheet has been =led 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 opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been =led in the present case. He also submits that the applicant is alleged to have actively participated in a serious case of cheating and criminal conspiracy. It is submitted that the complainant paid substantial amounts of money to co-accused Shamim Khan for a land purchase, but the sale deed was never executed, and Shamim Khan allegedly made false assurances throughout. During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant allegedly received Rs. 4,00,000/- from Shamim Khan for assisting in the preparation of documents related to the transaction. He also submits that the applicant has two more criminal cases which are pending. Therefore, the present 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 oBence, period of detention of the applicant since 08.10.2025, the fact that the complainant had allegedly entered into a land purchase transaction with co-accused Shamim Khan and paid substantial amounts via cash and cheques for the sale deed, which was never executed and during investigation, Shamim Khan stated in his memorandum that he had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- to the present applicant, who allegedly assisted in preparing the documents, but other co-accused person, namely, Pradeep Kumar Thakur has already been granted bail by this Court 4 vide order dated 20.11.2025 in MCRC No. 9401/2025 and another co-accused person, namely, Raju Paswan has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 in MCRCA No. 1756/202 and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has been =led in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Rajkamal, involved in Crime No. 161/2025 registered at Police Station Charcha, District- Korea (C.G.) for the oBence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on 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 =le an undertaking to the eBect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates =xed 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 =xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suFcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of 5 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 =xed 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 =xed 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 suFcient 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. OFce is directed to send a certi=ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan