1 2025:CGHC:61850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10446 of 2025 Shamim Khan S/o Mumtaz Khan Aged About 42 Years R/o Vivekanand Colony Nagarpalika Shivpur Charcha Police Station- Charcha, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station- Charcha, District - Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raghuvendra Pradhan and Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12 .202 5 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. 161/2025, registered at Police Station – Charcha, District - Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Sikandar Sao, was shown land bearing Khasra No. 28, measuring 0.43 hectares, by the applicant for the purpose of sale. Upon reaching an agreement, the complainant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.19 16:56:58 +0530 2 paid Rs. 10,000 in cash, followed by Rs. 1,90,000 through cheque and Rs. 2,00,000 in cash. Subsequently, on 24.10.2016, the applicant informed the complainant that the registration of the land would be carried out; however, the registration was never completed. After approximately one and a half years, the applicant provided only photocopies of sale papers executed on stamp papers worth Rs. 300 each. Thereafter, further payments amounting to Rs. 7,90,000 were made by the complainant and his son, partly through cheque and partly in cash. Upon making inquiries at the Registrar Office and Tehsil Office, it was discovered that no land registration had been carried out. Based on this information, an FIR was lodged against the applicant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 18.08.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. 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 as per the FIR, the incident pertains to the year 2014, i.e. about 11 years ago, and the complainant has filed the report after and inordinate delay without any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Raju Paswan has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in MCRCA No. 1756/2025, and another co-accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Thakur has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 9401/2025 vide order dated 20.11.2025, and another co-accused, namely, Rajkamal has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 9629/2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, there are three cases, including the present case. In one case, the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court, the 3 second case is the present one, and the third case is proposed to be filed, the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, and the applicant has been in jail since 15.11.2025. As the trial is likely to take a considerable length of time to conclude, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 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 and the fact the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and as per the FIR, the incident pertains to the year 2014, i.e. about 11 years ago, and the complainant has filed the report after and inordinate delay without any plausible explanation, further the co-accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Thakur has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 9401/2025 vide order dated 20.11.2025, and another co-accused, namely, Rajkamal has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 9629/2025 vide order dated 27.11.2025, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, there are three cases, including the present case, in one case, the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court, the second case is the present one, and the third case is proposed to be filed, the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case, and the applicant has been in jail since 15.11.2025, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Shamim Khan, involved in Crime No. 161/2025, registered at Police 4 Station – Charcha, District - Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 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 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 applicants 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 5 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 Preeti