1 2025:CGHC:61531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9454 of 2025 Abhilash Masih S/o Late Kali Masih Aged About 46 Years R/o Plot No. A- 903 Building E-2, Infront of Shree Vanktesh Hospital, Kamal Vihar, Devpuri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.12.2025 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. 184/2025 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant is a resident of the above-mentioned address and, except for the cases registered in ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.17 16:35:08 +0530 2 connection with the present alleged incident, there is no record of any previous criminal antecedent against him. It is alleged that the applicant has been involved in Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for offences punishable under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In connection with the said crime, the applicant was arrested on 11.08.2025 and was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Raipur, who remanded him to judicial custody. Since then, the applicant has been lodged in Central Jail, Raipur. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The charge-sheet has been registered as Criminal Case No. 41613/2025, and the matter is presently pending trial. The next date of hearing has been fixed for 05.11.2025. During the course of proceedings, the applicant preferred his first regular bail application under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the learned trial Court. The said application was rejected vide order dated 28.10.2025 on the ground that the allegations pertain to a serious nature of offence involving alleged cheating of multiple persons. Subsequently, the applicant approached the Sessions Court by filing a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. However, the said application was also rejected vide order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, District Raipur. According to the allegations, the dispute between the complainant and the applicant arose out of a commercial transaction based on an agreement executed between them. The said agreement allegedly lacked notarization, date, signatures of witnesses, photograph, and seal of the executor. The prosecution alleges that despite such deficiencies, 3 the applicant induced the complainant and others in connection with the transaction. It is further alleged that the agreement provided a term of 20 months for fulfillment of obligations. However, the First Information Report was lodged before the expiry of the said period. The prosecution case states that the complainant had parted with money pursuant to the understanding arrived at with the applicant. The prosecution further alleges that the amount in question was transferred to the account of a third-party entity, namely M/s Annie Elie Supplier, which is stated to be operated by the applicant. Based on these allegations, it is contended that the applicant was involved in the alleged transaction forming the subject matter of the offence. After filing of the charge-sheet, no further recovery or discovery is stated to be pending. The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and do not carry punishment of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding ten years. The prosecution acknowledges that the applicant is about 46 years of age and a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title. He has remained in judicial custody for a substantial period, and the trial is likely to take time for its conclusion. 3. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he, along with the other co-accused persons, namely Abhishek Praveen Joseph, on the pretext of investing money in share trading, crypto trading, and plots, allegedly collected a total amount of Rs.1,11,25,000/- from the complainant and from his acquaintance, but failed to make the said investments and also failed to return the said amount. Thereafter, a case was registered for the offences under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on 10.08.2025. 4 4. Mr. Tripathi further submits that the said offences are bailable and non- cognizable, and that the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 11.08.2025. As the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, he therefore prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that, in view of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a notice was issued to the applicant, and that under Section 35(6), the applicant failed to comply with the said notice. Due to such non-compliance, although the aforesaid offences are bailable and non- cognizable in nature, the applicant was arrested. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the offences punishable under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered against the applicant, are bailable and non-cognizable. 8. Upon a pointed query being put to the learned State counsel as to why the applicant, who is an accused of bailable and non-cognizable offences, was arrested, and why such plea was not taken before the remand Magistrate or the trial Court at the time of hearing of bail application, then he could not give a satisfactory reply and said that the applicant was unware of the said fact. The learned State counsel sought to justify the arrest by submitting that, in view of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a notice was issued to the 5 applicant, and that under Section 35(6), the applicant failed to comply with the said notice. Due to such alleged non-compliance, although the offences are bailable and non-cognizable in nature, the applicant was arrested, which cannot be accepted at all as from perusal of the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita clearly shows that issuance of notice is contemplated in cases involving cognizable offences. In the present case, the offences registered against the applicant under Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are non-cognizable and bailable one. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 11.08.2025. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in the present case. 9. Let the Applicant – Abhilash Masih, involved in Crime No. 184/2025 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 11. Certified copy, today. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek