1 2025:CGHC:50002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7935 of 2025 Indranath @ Rohit Lakra S/o Govindram Turi @ Admon Lakra Aged About 40 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 38 Years), R/o Village Meghetoli, Outpost Aara, Police Station Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar C.G. Present Address Street No. 37, Vipin Garden Extension, Rajesh Niwas, Dwarka, Police Station Mohan Garden Dwarka, New Delhi. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER ON BOARD 08/10/2025 1. Applicant has filed this fifth bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2023 registered at Police Station – Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 419,420 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.10.09 16:48:27 +0530 2 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that complainant lodged a written report against the applicant stating that she met the applicant on a matrimonial site on 15.11.2021 where he impersonated himself as an IB Narcotics Officer. On false pretext of marriage made physical relation with her and committed fraud by taking some amount of cash and even forced her to purchase a Skoda Car in her name. Based upon the aforementioned crime, complaint was registered and applicant was arrested on 02.03.2023. 3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, he has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that this application is filed on the ground of delay in trial. Applicant was arrested on 02.03.2023, however, till date no witness has been examined. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and further submits that from order sheet enclosed along with this bail application in support of his ground of delay, it is apparent that applicant was arrested in this crime on production warrant only on 02.08.2025. 5. At this stage, counsel for applicant fairly submitted that from the order sheet it is apparent that applicant was arrested on 02.03.2023, however, as per his information, when applicant was taken to Delhi in another crime registered against him therein, at that place, applicant fled from custody and thereafter arrested in crime registered at Delhi. Order sheet dated 02.08.2025 reveals that he was produced in this case on 02.08.2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 7. From the submission made by counsel for parties, as also order sheets filed along with bail application it is appearing that appellant was initially arrested, however, when he was taken to Delhi for production in some other crime he fled away from the custody of Police. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, delay in trial could not be attributed to the prosecution but it is due to the fault of applicant. Witness could not be examined because applicant himself fled away from custody of Police and was arrested in this crime on production warrant only on 02.08.2025. 9. For the forgoing discussion, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application, accordingly, the application is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE alfiza