1 2025:CGHC:47324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7347 of 2025 Md. Nurul Sidhqui S/o Md. Kudubuddin Sidhqui Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Gamhardeeh, Police Station- Shankargarh, Distt- Balrampur (C.G.) At Present Ambikapur (Ghutrapara) Police Station - Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This is the 9rst bail application 9led 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. 39/2025 registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution, in brief, the complainant Maniyar Sai Bhagat lodged a complaint on 30.03.2025 before the concerned police station, stating that in the year 2021, the present applicant, by luring him with a ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.16 18:21:24 +0530 2 plan to double his money, received a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- as security. When the complainant presented the said cheque before the concerned bank, it was dishonoured due to insuBcient balance. When the complainant demanded repayment, the applicant refused to return the money, which led the complainant to 9le a complaint against him. Upon receiving the said complaint, the concerned police investigated the matter and found that the present applicant had committed similar o=ences against various persons, including the complainant. Accordingly, a case was registered against him, and on 02.04.2025 he was arrested. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was 9led before the concerned Magistrate under the aforementioned o=ences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that as per the statement recorded by the concerned police, the aforesaid o=ences have not been made out against the present applicant. The actual facts of the case are that the present applicant and the complainant are friends, and both had invested money in the share market, from which they had earlier earned pro9ts. However, when they incurred losses in the said investment plan, the complainant lodged a false complaint against the present applicant. He also submits that it is an admitted fact that the present applicant himself had invested money in the said share market and had also su=ered losses. It is further an admitted fact that when the said cheque was dishonoured, the complainant 9led a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present applicant, which is still pending before the concerned Magistrate. Hence, the aforesaid o=ences are not 3 made out against the present applicant. In the present crime the challan has already been 9led, and on perusal of the entire challan, it is clear that the alleged o=ences are not made out against the present applicant, as the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the same transaction is already pending. He further submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent except the present case which is also listed today before this Court for hearing. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 02.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, 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 been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He submits that the present applicant has 01 more criminal antecedent of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual o=ender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the allegation against the present applicant is that he lured the complainant to double the amount and received Rs. 5,00,000/-, but failed to do so, and further considering the fact that the present applicant has one criminal antecedent apart from the present case, which is also listed before this Court for hearing today. Moreover, the fact that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant has been incarcerated since 02.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 4 7. Let the Applicant – Md. Nurul Sidhqui, involved in Crime No. 39/2025 registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on her 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 9le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 9xed 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 9xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suBcient 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 9xed 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 9xed 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 5 court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without suBcient 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. OBce is directed to send a certi9ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek