1 2025:CGHC:57004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9524 of 2025 Rajkamal S/o Ramesh Kumar Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No.72, Mla Nagar, Ward No.19, Junapara Korea, P.S. And Tehsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO, Police Station - Charcha, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station - Charcha District – Korea (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC 1860. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.25 11:05:00 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant had allegedly entered into a land purchase transaction with co-accused Shamim Khan, who assured him of selling land. It is further the case of the prosecution that over a period of time the complainant and his farnily members paid various amounts to the co accused Shamim Khan through cash and cheques for the purpose of executing the sale deed. It is further alleged that despite receiving money, Shamim Khan did not get the sale deed executed in favor of the complainant and kept giving false assurances to the complainant. During the course of investigation, the prosecution came to know that the co-accused Shamim Khan stated in his memorandum statement that, for preparation of document required for the execution of sale deed he had paid some amount to co-accused Pradeep Kumar Thakur and Rs. 4,00,000/- to the present applicant, who allegedly assisted in preparing documents. On the basis of the said memorandum Crime No. 161/2025 was registered at Police Station Charcha for offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that applicant has no installment or amount was ever paid by the complainant to him. The applicant is not known to the complainant, and he appears to have been implicated merely for the purpose of exerting undue pressure. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and a bare perusal of the same reveals that no 3 evidence has been collected by the prosecution to suggest that the applicant induced the complainant to commit any act constituting an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Further, the charge-sheet contains no substantive material to indicate that the applicant prepared or fabricated any document so as to attract the offences relating to forgery. The prosecution has also failed to collect any material during the investigation that may indicate the applicant’s involvement in any conspiracy with other co-accused persons so as to attract Section 120B of the IPC. Since the entire investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet filed, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. It is submitted that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, or 120B of the IPC is made out against the applicant, as the prosecution has failed to produce any document indicating his involvement in cheating or forgery. The applicant is ready and willing to abide by all directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 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, and 4 the fact that co-accused Ashok Kumar Kashyap has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.09.2025 in MCRCA No. 1428 of 2025, and another co-accused namely Pradeep Kumar Thakur has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 9337 of 2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025, further considering that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 08.10.2025, and noting that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Rajkamal, involved in Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station - Charcha District – Korea (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the IPC 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav