1 2025:CGHC:54168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8819 of 2025 Mahboob Ansari S/o Inayat Ulla Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Karondamuda, Post - Basdei, Tehsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Jainagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhay, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 131/2025 registered at Police Station : Jaynagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 10 of the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. As per the prosecution story in brief, the complainant Rakibul had an old acquaintance with accused persons Ahmed Raza Ansari, Nizamuddin @ Basarat, Mehboob @ Ahmed, and Rubina Khatun, and therefore they ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.07 14:48:07 +0530 2 used to communicate with each other frequently. During this period, the accused Ahmed Raza Ansari, Nizamuddin @ Basarat, and Mehboob @ Ahmed lured the complainant by promising to double his money within three months through investment in the stock market. Falling into their trap, the complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash to accused Ahmed Raza Ansari and Mehboob @ Ahmed on 25.09.2024, and also transferred an additional Rs. 7,00,000/- through UPI and cheque to the bank account of Ahmed Raza Ansari on different dates. In total, Rs. 7,00,000/- was deposited in the said account. After three months, when the complainant demanded his money back, the accused started making excuses and avoided repayment. Thereafter, accused Ahmed Raza Ansari issued Cheque No. 00025 of UCO Bank, Surajpur Branch, for an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-, which, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured due to insufÏcient funds in the account. It is alleged that the accused persons cheated the complainant by making him believe that his money would be doubled within three months. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the co-accused, namely Ahmed Raza Ansari, has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7730 of 2025. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the case diary of the present case is not available. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the co-accused, namely Ahmed Raza Ansari, has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7730 of 2025, has already been granted regular bail by this Court. Also considering the fact that the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court which is taken on record and the applicant has been in jail since 19.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Let the Applicant – Mahboob Ansari, involved in Crime No. 131/2025 registered at Police Station : Jaynagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 10 of the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 4 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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 Abhishek