1 2025:CGHC:5746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 638 of 2025 Salman Khan S/o Shri Salam Ulla Khan, Aged About 31 Years R/o - Talapara, Near Marimai Temple, P.S. - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge, P.S. - City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, B.N.S.S., 2023) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 553/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 338, 340(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.S., 2023. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.31 13:08:17 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Umendra Prasad Banjare, lodged a report on 16.11.2024 at around 21:55, alleging that he is presently posted as Patwari and when one Samb Shivam Pathak came before him for mutation of flat alongwith a possession certificate, then it came into knowledge of him that one Pinky Matlani, who is wife of present applicant has made a forged possession certificate and on the basis of forged document got his flat registered in name of Samb Shivam Pathak, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant along with co-accused, subsequently he has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that fact that the applicant has applied for possession certificate before the offence of complainant and and submitted his details before the complainant and on next day he got the document and in the said document there was signature and seal of the concerned officer so there was no question of forged document. It has been contended that similarly situated co- accused, namely Bharat Matlani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 in MCRC No.8368/2024. It has been lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024, the applicant has only criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some 3 time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant alongwith co-accused person have made a forged possession certificate and on the basis of forged document got registered the flat of complainant in their own name, further the applicant has one criminal antecedent, which is under the IPC, therefore, the 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 offence, period of detention of the applicant since 17.11.2024, the fact that the similarly situated co-accused, namely Bharat Matlani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 in MCRC No.8368/2024, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which is under Section 279 of the IPC and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant-Salman Khan, involved in Crime No.553/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 338, 340(2), 3(5) of the 4 B.N.S.S., 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5 (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 313 Cr.P.C. 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu