1 2025:CGHC:52825 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7518 of 2025 Ved Prakash Pandey @ Umesh Pandey S/o Ramsevak Pandey Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - H. No. 06, New S. Basti, Dimna Road Mangon, Jamshedpur, Purvi Sinhabhum Jharkhand ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Basantpur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer SB : Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice ORDER ON BOARD 29/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 88/2024 registered at Police Station - Basantpur, District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution's case is that, the complainant Hemant Mishra who is working ass Pharmacist in Govt. Hospital Wandrafnagar who has given written complaint before the police station Basantpur that the accused Ved Prakash Pandey @ Umesh Pandey who is residing in Jharkhand given information to the complainant that he is having academy in Jamshedpur Tata where pharmacy course is also running therefore, in a good faith for 2 admission of his brother Hemant Kumar Mishra in pharmacy course, he gave to the accused of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 07.09.2021 and Rs. 1,10,000/- on 08.09.2021 in his bank account and Rs. 20,000/- on 08.03.2022 and Rs. 5000/- on 10.04.2022 which totals to Rs. 2,35,000/- as given to the accused, but the complainant’s brother admission was not done for 01 year and when the complainant, wanted his money back, the accused told him to return the amount within 10 to 15 days and on 20.05.2023, the accused came Wandrafnagar and gave a cheque bearing no. 137845 of Bank of India for an amount Rs. 2,35,000/- and told him to deposit the cheque after 10 to 15 days, but the complainant in a good faith had not deposited the cheque in the bank and on 30.01.2023, when the complainant asked for his money and the original documents of his brother, accused by using filthy language denied to pay the amount against which FIR ws lodged against the present applicant under Sec. 420 of IPC and he was arrested on 01.08.2025. 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 the applicant has already returned the amount to the complaint by way of cheque and therefore, no offence as alleged is made out. He further submits that the incident took place in between the year 2021- 22 and the FIR has been lodged on 09.06.2024, therefore, there is a huge delay in lodging of the FIR without any plausible reason. There is no material available against the applicant and the FIR has been registered on the basis of false allegations. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.08.2025, 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, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court in the present case and the investigation is still going on. She submits that there specific allegations leveled against the 3 applicant that he made false promises to the complainant regarding providing admission to the complainant’s brother, however, when he failed to do the same, the aforementioned offence was registered. He further submits that 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 the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties and further charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court, period of pre-trial detention, conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Ved Prakash Pandey @ Umesh Pandey, involved in Crime No. 88/2024 registered at Police Station - Basantpur, District – Balrampur - Ramnujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be released on bail on 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 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 his under Section 269 of 4 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 his, 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 Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY