1 2025:CGHC:51659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8356 of 2025 Ramnarayan Vastrakar S/o Sadhram Vastrakar Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Santoshi Para, Sivni Chawki-Naila, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 287/2025, registered at Police Station- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, complaint was made by the complainant Sahdev by stating that, in November 2023 he met present applicant through his friend namely Firatram Dheevar who informed him that the present applicant is earning huge amount through online trading and after lapse of 8 months returning the entire invested amount, therefore complainant. That thereafter upon the said pretext on different dates he has given Rs. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 96,00,000/- to the present applicant through different modes. That, when he demanded his amount back then by one way or other the applicant has avoided to return the amount, thereby has committed offences of cheating. On the basis of this complaint, the concerned police registered offences under Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. After investigation and arrest, the police filed the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, prompting the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC are entirely missing in the instant case. There is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR, which further casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The applicant had, through the complainant, borrowed money from one Manish Kurre, the complainant in Crime No. 81/2025, and after returning the principal amount, was unable to pay the interest portion. Subsequently, separate FIRs were lodged against the present applicant and other co-accused person on similar grounds. He further submits that a bare perusal of the complaint would show that this is essentially a dispute arising out of a money transaction between the parties, which is purely civil in nature. Due to the non-payment of interest, the complainant has allegedly concocted a false and fabricated story to falsely implicate the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused- Sunita Vastrakar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4883 of 2025 on 24.07.2025, however, it is admitted that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable to that of the co-accused. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, as per the deponent’s knowledge, two cases under Section 420 (Crime Nos. 81/2025 and 517/2020) and three cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 3 Act (Crime Nos. 221/2020, 37/2020, and 222/2020) are pending adjudication. Lastly, the applicant has been in custody since 18.05.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious and prima facie disclose criminality under Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC. The applicant, along with co-accused, allegedly induced the complainant and others to part with substantial sums of money under the false pretext of online trading and promised returns, but has avoided repayment despite repeated demands, demonstrating dishonest intention. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the prima facie material collected, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for State and perused the case diary. 6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and the State, it is observed that the applicant has been in custody since 18.05.2025 and the investigation has been completed with the charge sheet already filed and taken on record. The allegations, as per the complaint, relate to a financial transaction between the parties, which prima facie appears to be a civil dispute, with no clear evidence of deliberate cheating or criminal intent on the part of the applicant. The co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, and there is no material to suggest that the applicant is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Considering the above, it appears just and reasonable to allow the applicant to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, applicant- Ramnarayan Vastrakar, involved in Crime No. 287/2025, registered at Police Station- Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC, be 4 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 5 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/-d/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey