1 2025:CGHC:51887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8338 of 2025 Yug Goyal S/o Sandeep Goyal Aged About 24 Years R/o Flat No. 503,g Heights, Gajananpuram, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) -496001. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Ps- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.10.2025 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 who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 316/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar District – Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant had allegedly VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.17 17:22:19 +0530 2 entrusted a sum of money to the present Applicant for investment purposes. However, the Applicant failed to invest the said amount as per the understanding between the parties. Consequently, the complainant lodged an FIR alleging misappropriation and cheating on the part of the Applicant. It is alleged that despite repeated demands, the Applicant neither invested the amount nor returned the same within the stipulated time. It is further alleged that the Applicant, with dishonest intention, induced the complainant to part with his hard-earned money and subsequently misused it for his personal benefits. The complainant has also alleged that the Applicant had issued certain cheques towards repayment of the amount, which were later dishonoured on presentation. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against the Applicant for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of law. 3. Learned counsel for the submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He further submits that the complainant has deliberately suppressed several material facts which go to the root of the matter and has knowingly concealed the fact of substantial repayment made by the Applicant much prior to the registration of the FIR, clearly indicating that the present dispute arises purely out of a business transaction. The complainant had willingly invested the alleged amount in the Applicant’s business venture with full knowledge of the risks and contingencies involved, and having failed to secure the expected returns, has now concocted a false and frivolous story to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute, despite having already initiated efficacious civil and Section 138 N.I. Act proceedings for recovery. The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any criminal offence, as the essential ingredients of cheating, deception, or fraudulent intent under Section 420 IPC (corresponding to Section 318(4) of the BNSS, 2023) are wholly absent, and 3 there is no mens rea attributable to the Applicant. The mandatory safeguards under Section 35(3) of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 41A Cr.P.C.) have not been followed, and the criminal process has been misused to settle a civil dispute in breach of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the applicant is suffering from a chronic disease, namely Epilepsy, and has been in jail since 26.09.2025. Therefore, he prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that applicant is suffering from chronic disease, namely Epilepsy and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and he has been in jail since 26.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Yug Goyal, involved in Crime No. 316/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar District – Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (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 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav