1 2025:CGHC:53947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7780 of 2025 Karan Saggar S/o Satish Saggar Aged About 35 Years R/o Kisan Rice Mill Road, Sajjan Colony, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11 .202 5 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 501/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution's case, on 25.07.2025, the complainant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.06 13:24:10 +0530 2 lodged an FIR at Police Station Ambikapur against the present applicant. It was alleged that in October 2022, the applicant introduced himself as a broker for admissions at Kalinga University, Raipur (C.G.), and assured the complainant that he would secure admission for the complainant’s daughter in the B.Ed. course for a total fee of Rs. 80,000/-. On 23.10.2022, the applicant visited the complainant’s residence and received Rs.40,000/- in cash, assuring that the admission would be completed properly. He also provided a phone number for verification, and when the complainant called that number, a woman named Nandi Bhardwaj confirmed the admission and asked for the remaining fees to be paid online. The complainant informed her that he had already paid the amount to the applicant. When the complainant later requested the admission-related documents, Nandi Bhardwaj directed him to contact the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant’s father, Satish Sagar (co-accused), also assured the complainant that the admission would be arranged and that the amount would be refunded if it was not. Thereafter, the applicant kept delaying the matter on various pretexts, including his marriage. In September and October 2024, the applicant sent two mark sheets on WhatsApp, purportedly showing results for Semesters I and II issued by Kalinga University, Raipur, which were later found to be forged. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 25.07.2025, whereas the alleged incident pertains to the year 2022. Thus, the 3 FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of nearly three years. He also submits that the applicant had already refunded the entire sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant through PhonePe prior to the registration of the present FIR. A copy of the payment receipt evidencing the said transaction is enclosed as Annexure A/4 to this bail application. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Satish Sagar (the applicant’s father), has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2025. A copy of the said bail order is annexed as Annexure A/5. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The charge-sheet has already been filed in this case. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 31.08.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the FIR was lodged on 25.07.2025, whereas the alleged incident pertains to the year 2022, thus the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of nearly three years, further the applicant had already refunded the entire sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant through PhonePe prior to the registration of the present FIR, also 4 considering the fact that the co-accused, namely, Satish Sagar (the applicant’s father), has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.09.2025, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case and he is in jail since 31.08.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Karan Saggar, involved in Crime No. 501/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 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 5 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 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 Preeti