1 2025:CGHC:61270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9848 of 2025 * - Lallu Dhritlahre S/o Shri Ratan Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhalesur, P.S. Suhela, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. This is the second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 76/2021 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. In the matter chargesheet has been filed and Criminal Case No. 2491/2023 is pending consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was arrested on 17.11.2022 in connection with the aforesaid crime number. The allegation against the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.12.17 15:41:18 +0530 2 present applicant is that he in connivance with the main accused Nandu Joshi and Chandrashekhar defrauded the complainant namely Vinay Agrawal for sale of a property for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, whereas the property was not recorded in the name of co-accussed Nandu Joshi. The bail application moved by the applicant i.e. M.Cr.C. No. 30/2023 was allowed vide order dated 13.04.2023. On 24.04.2023, the applicant furnished bail bonds before the trial Court. Subsequently he was released on bail. On 25.04.2023; 09.05.2023; 22.05.2023; 06.06.2023; 19.06.2023; 03.07.2023; 12.07.2023; 24.07.2023; 11.09.2023; 26.09.2023 and 30.11.2023, the applicant appeared before the learned trial Court along with his counsel. On 07.01.2024; 05.02.2024; 04.03.2024; 09.04.2024; 17.05.2024; 29.06.2024; 08.08.2024; 17.09.2024 and 25.10.2024, 03.12.2024; 04.01.2025; 02.03.2025; 13.03.2025; 25.04.2025 and 26.06.2025, counsel for the applicant appeared before the learned trial Court and applications moved for exemption from personal appearance were allowed. On 04.08.2025 neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared before the learned trial Court, therefore, the bail bonds furnished by the applicant were cancelled and arrest warrant was issued by the learned trial Court for his appearance on 12.09.2025. 4. Pursuant to arrest warrant, the applicant was arrested on 28.10.2025 and was produced before the learned trial Court on 04.11.2025. The application moved by the applicant for grant of bail was rejected, against the said order, this second bail application has been preferred. 5. Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant regularly appeared before the learned trial Court after grant of bail but he failed to appear on 04.08.2025 and the learned trial Court directly issued warrant of arrest. He would contend that the learned trial Court ought to have issued summons or bailable warrant for appearance of applicant according to the law laid down by 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51. He would pray to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose. He would contend that the applicant did not appear before the learned trial Court on 04.08.2025 nor and application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. was moved, therefore, arrest warrant was issued. He would submit that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. It is further held that the power to issue warrants discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. 8. In the present case, the applicant was granted bail in MCrC No. 30 of 2023 vide order dated 13.04.2023. The applicant failed to appear on 04.08.2025 and on single default, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail and bonds and issued arrest warrant. The course adopted by the learned trial Court while issuing warrant of arrest is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and therefore, the second bail application moved by the applicant is hereby allowed. 4 9. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till the disposal of the trial; and, (iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future. 10. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti