1 2025:CGHC:61314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10125 of 2025 • Ashwani Dadsena S/o Gambhir Ram Dadsena Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Angari, P.S. And Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. S.C. Verma. Senior Advocate appeared through video conferencing and Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. Crime No.404/2025, registered at Police Station – Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that that the applicant/accused and others fraudulently sold the land of Complainant Deen Dayal, Director of Vedanta Foundation, Village Pararas, for Rs. 81,71,000/- VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.12.17 17:36:00 +0530 2 and gave Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 6,03,000/- to the Complainant and gave him a cheque for the remaining amount which bounced on 13.8.2025. Thus, on demanding the remaining amount of Rs. 74,68,000/-, the applicant/accused and others did not pay the remaining amount to the Complainant. The applicant/accused and others have committed fraud by luring the Complainant and getting the land registered through pressure and writing. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the applicant/accused and others at Balod Police Station under Crime No.404/2025, Sections 318 (4), 3 (5), and 61 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused/applicant has been arrested in this case. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR do not assign any specific or direct role to the applicant in the alleged cheating. There is no material to show that he participated in, facilited, or benefited from any transaction with the complainant. The entire prosecution case against the applicant appears to be based on suspicion and vague assertions rather than concrete evidence. He also submits that there are total 30 criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, out of which in 26 cases applicant has been acquitted and all are explained in detailed at paragraph No.4(a) of the bail application. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long 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 the charge-sheet has been filed in this 3 case and there are 30 criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, out of which in 26 cases applicant has been acquitted and all are explained in detailed at paragraph No.4(a) of the bail application, it appears that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Ashwani Dadsena, involved in Crime No.404/2025, registered at Police Station – Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 61(2) and 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 4 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. 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 vaishali