1 2025:CGHC:51748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8353 of 2025 1 - Santosh Das Mahant S/o Aghan Das Mahant Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Sajabahari, Outpost - Chaitma, Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Balco Nagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate SB: 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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 405/2023, registered at Police Station : Balco Nagar District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.08.2023 complainant Manglesh Das preferred a written report in Police Station Balco Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh alleging inter-alia that he came into contact with one Gurucharan Panth who gave assurance for getting him an employment in Tehsil Office Korba at the post of Clerk and both of them exchanged their phone numbers to each other. It is further alleged that next day the co-accused called the complainant and disclosed that an amount of Rs 7.5 lakhs is required for his employment in the post of Clerk at Tehsil Office, which was accepted by SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 the complainant and after arranging a sum of Rs 3 lakhs, complainant reached to his father in law Chetan Das Mahant and borrowed an amount of Rs 4.50 lakhs. It is further alleged that the complainant along with his father-in-law reached to co-accused Gurucharan Panth who called them at Hotel Surbhi where the co- accused was present with three other persons. It is further alleged that all the three strangers disclosed their name as Arun Kumar Yadav, (Peon), R.K. Chauhan (Personal Secretary to C.M.) and Sumit Das (Assistant). It is further alleged that the personal secretary disclosed that he has given employment to various persons then the complainant give the entire amount 7.5 lakhs to the co-accused R.K. Chauhan on 28.01.2020 and thereafter all the accused persons escaped from there by car. It is further alleged that the complainant met some other persons who disclosed that they have also given money to the accused persons and also disclosed the real name of the accused persons are not R.K. Chauhan and Arun Kumar Yadav but they are Santosh Das Mahant, the present applicant and Dooj Ram Yadav and it also came to knowledge of the complainant that the co- accused persons along with the present applicant have committed fraud of Rs. 48 lakhs. On the basis of written report lodged by the complainant, the police registered an offence bearing Crime No. 405/2023 for an offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. During course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 17.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there are total three criminal antecedents registered against the applicant of similar nature. He further submits that the FIR was lodged against the co-accused persons and the present applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons. He further submits that the main allegation is against the co-accused persons regarding making false promises and the present applicant was even not acquainted with the co- accused persons and he also met them for the first time on the place of 3 incident. There is no direct or indirect proof that the said amount is received as commission by the applicant from the complainant and there is no material available in the case-diary proving the same. He further submits that the co- accused persons Duj Ram Yadav and Somit Das Mahant have already been enlarged on bail in other cases of similar nature by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 in MCRC Nos. 3344/2025 and 3976/2025 and the present applicant is in jail since 17.07.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is alleged against the applicant that he promised to provide government job of Clerk and received commission therefrom. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that theree cases have been registered against him. Further, considering the fact that co-accused persons Duj Ram Yadav and Somit Das Mahant have already been enlarged on bail in other cases of similar nature by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 in MCRC Nos. 3344/2025 and 3976/2025, and further the case of the applicant is better than the case of co-accused and he is in custody since 17.07.2025 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to allow the present application. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Santosh Das Mahand, involved in Crime No. 405/2023, registered at Police Station : Balco Nagar, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of 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 4 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 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. 9. 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