1 2025:CGHC:59703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10062 of 2025 Eliazer Kumar S/o Fajihat Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Alfa And Omega School Thakurpur, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 213/2024 registered at Police Station Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.11.2024, the complainant, Satyanarayan Sidar, lodged a report at Police Station Lailunga stating that in the year 2021, accused Sunil Tigga and his associates introduced him to Dream Alpha Omega Multirade Services Pvt. Ltd., whose directors are the present applicant/accused Eliazar Kumar and his wife Anita Beck. They assured him that through their company, loans could be obtained from any bank. Out of the total loan amount, 50% would be given to the borrower, 10% to the agent, and 40% to the company, and the company would repay the entire loan within three years. Believing this assurance, the complainant and several others submitted their documents and obtained large amounts of loans from different banks. Only a portion of the amount was returned to them, while the remaining substantial amounts were taken by the company directors and co-accused persons. Initially, the company paid the loan installments, but later stopped paying them, due to which the outstanding loan and interest kept increasing. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Eliazar Kumar, Anita Beck, and others, acting together, fraudulently induced several persons and misappropriated a total amount of about Rs.81,34,937/-, which led to the registration of the alleged offence against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4181 of 2025, therefore 3 present second bail application has been preferred on the ground that the applicant has been in custody since 25.01.2025 and charges were framed against the applicant and the co-accused on 17.06.2025. However, as reflected from the order-sheet of the trial Court, till date the statements of none of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded. He further submits that four identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Anita Beg, Sanjay Ram, Shyam Sundar Jangde and Budheshwar Kuzur have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.04.2025, 07.05.2025, 27.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 in MCRC Nos.2773/2025, 3516/2025, 4507/2025 and 4403/2025, respectively. He also submits that there are 22 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that present applicant is Director of Dream Alpha Omega Multirade Services Pvt. Ltd., along with co-accused persons, induced several individuals to obtain bank loans by assuring that the company would repay the entire loan within three years and that a fixed percentage of the loan amount would be distributed among the borrower, agent, and the company. After getting loans sanctioned, only a part of the money was returned to the borrowers, while the remaining 4 amount totalling about Rs.81,34,937/- was fraudulently taken and misappropriated by the applicant and his associates, thereby committing cheating and criminal breach of trust. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 in MCRC No. 4181 of 2025 on the ground that as Director of Dream Alpha Omega Multirade Services Pvt. Ltd., the applicant fraudulently induced people to take bank loans and misappropriated a major portion of the loan amounts about Rs.81,34,937/-, thereby cheating multiple persons, but considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 25.01.2025 and till date the statements of none of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded as per order-sheet of the trial Court, further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and other co-accused, persons, namely, Anita Beg, Sanjay Ram, Shyam Sundar Jangde and Budheshwar Kuzur have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.04.2025, 07.05.2025, 27.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 in MCRC Nos.2773/2025, 3516/2025, 4507/2025 and 4403/2025, respectively and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the 5 view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Eliazer Kumar, involved in Crime No. 213/2024 registered at Police Station Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, 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 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. 6 (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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil