1 2025:CGHC:54377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8892 of 2025 Pankaj Choudhary S/o Shri Sakaldeep Choudhary Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Advocacy, R/o Darripara, P.S. Manipur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhi Nagar), Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Vishal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 423/2025, registered at Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhi Nagar), Ambikapur, District – Surguja(C.G.) (As per FIR) for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937 and Sections 296, 61B, 338 and 339 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR in this matter was lodged by Smt. Alka Singh in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.07 15:58:58 +0530 2 between 07.07.2023 and 11.06.2025. The FIR was lodged on 26.07.2025, inter-alia, on the allegations that the applicants are moneylenders and have committed an offence under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937. It has been alleged that the applicants had borrowed Rs. 13 lakhs from Anupama Singh, out of which Rs. 11,82,000/- has already been repaid, and now Anupama Singh is demanding an additional Rs. 18 lakhs. It has further been alleged that, in connection with the recovery of this amount, the complainant has been subjected to harassment. It is also alleged that six blank cheques, signed by the complainant and her husband, were used for the said amount and were subsequently misused. Further, it is alleged that a forged agreement was executed, and the complainant has denied her signature on the said agreement. It has also been alleged that the blank cheques were issued for the recovery of an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the complainant had borrowed money for the co-accused, namely Anupama Singh, who has already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, C.G. The complaint was filed in June 2025. It is further submitted that the applicant is a practicing Advocate at the District and Sessions Court, Ambikapur, and Annexure A/9 is the experience certificate of the applicant issued by the District Bar Council, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. It is also submitted that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, and not a single allegation in the FIR is made against the present applicant. The complainant and co-accused Anupama Singh are closely related, and a dispute over money exists between them. Therefore, it is submitted that 3 the complainant lodged a false report. It is also submitted that the applicant has three previous criminal cases under the IPC of the year 2003 and 2004, in all of which he has been acquitted. Further, the main accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8610/2025. The applicant has been in custody since 09.10.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. Further, perusal of the case diary indicates that the applicant/accused is alleged to have been running a racket to collect money by illegally carrying out interest-based transactions in a planned manner and, through criminal conspiracy, exerting pressure on the victim to forcibly recover the amount. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, and not a single allegation in the FIR is made against the present applicant, further the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8610/2025, also considering the fact that applicant has three previous criminal cases of the year 2003 and 2004, in all of which he has been acquitted, the applicant has been in custody since 09.10.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Pankaj Choudhary, involved in Crime No. 423/2025, registered at Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhi Nagar), Ambikapur, District – Surguja(C.G.) (As per FIR) for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Debtors Protection Act, 1937 and Sections 296, 61B, 338 and 339 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 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 sufficient 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 5 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti