1 2025:CGHC:57534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7948 of 2025 Murli Laheja S/o Late Hemant Das Aged About 55 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Mangla Chauk, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. Civil Line Distt. - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta , Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 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. 1041/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 10:44:33 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.09.2025, the FIR informant, Haresh Kumar Bajaj, lodged a written complaint before Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, alleging that he is a resident of Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur, and that co-accused Heera Bhagnani, who resides in the same locality, came to his house on 23.08.2025 along with the present applicant. It is alleged that both of them induced the complainant by stating that if he deposited money in the “Westies Company,” the amount would be doubled within 40 days and further claimed that nearly 3000 persons were already associated with them. It is further alleged that Heera Bhagnani provided two scanners one belonging to Murli Laheja and the other belonging to Kanshi and on such inducement, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, after the expiry of 40 days, when neither Heera Bhagnani nor the present applicant returned the money, the complainant attempted to contact them, but their mobile phones were found switched off or unreachable. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that Heera Bhagnani, is absconding and has not been arrested by the prosecution. The applicant is merely a paid employee of Heera Bhagnani, receiving a salary of Rs. 30,000 per month, and was working strictly under his directions without any knowledge of the alleged fraud committed by him. The applicant’s bank account and his son's account were operated and handled entirely by Heera Bhagnani, and the applicant had no control or involvement in the alleged transactions. The applicant’s son, Devesh Laheja, has himself deposited more than Rs. 3.50 lakhs with Heera 3 Bhagnani, who issued receipts and signed entries in his diary, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3. Similarly, another son, Varun Laheja, transferred money to the account of Shanti Bhagnani, mother of Heera Bhagnani, as reflected in the relevant pages of the IDFC Bank statement. Although several persons are named in the FIR, none of them have deposited any amount in the account of the applicant or his family members, and the applicant was neither a beneficiary nor a profiteer but acted only under the instructions of Heera Bhagnani. The depositors themselves have stated that they deposited the money only after telephonic confirmation from Heera Bhagnani that the applicant was his employee. Nothing has been seized from the applicant, and neither he nor his family members have any illicit funds; moreover, he is the sole breadwinner, and his family is suffering from severe financial and mental distress. The applicant has been in custody since 08/09/2025, 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 filed in the present case, and the applicant has one criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, and also taking into account that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, 4 that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.09.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Murli Laheja, involved in Crime No. 1041/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 5 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 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav