Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60063 (CHH)

SHEIKH NAIMUDDIN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/9909/2025 · 2025-12-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:58872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9909 of 2025 Sheikh Naimuddin S/o Sheikh Abdul Firoz Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Krishnarampur Gurguripota, District- Hugli (West Bengal) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12 .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. 78/2025, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant Sunil Kumar Behra, posted as Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Saraipali, lodged a written report stating that the accused persons—Krishna Das, Ravishankar Patel, Hazari Prasad Chauhan, Dilip Sharma, Rajkumar PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.05 14:42:26 +0530 2 Barsagde, Nilamber Vibhar, and Khirod Kumar Sahu—had applied for loans and mortgaged gold ornaments in the bank. The ornaments were examined by accused Gangadhar Pusti and Siyaram Choudhari, who certified them to be genuine gold. On the basis of this certification, the bank sanctioned loans amounting to Rs. 22,86,200/-. Later, the gold was found to be fake, and it was revealed that the said gold ornaments had been purchased by the co-accused from the present applicant. Based on this report, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons, including the present applicant. 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 submitted that the present applicant has neither mortgaged any fake gold ornaments, nor he has obtained any loan from the Bank, therefore there is not direct or indirect involvement of the present applicant in commission of alleged offence. He later submits that three co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025, 27.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9227/2025, 9625/2025 and 9707/2025, respectively, and one of the co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRCA Nos. 1855/2025. He also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 30.08.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted regular and anticipatory bail by this 3 Court. 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 that three co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025, 27.11.2025 and 02.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 9227/2025, 9625/2025 and 9707/2025, respectively, and one of the co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in MCRCA Nos. 1855/2025, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 30.08.2025, 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 on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Sheikh Naimuddin, respectively involved in Crime No. 78/2025, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., be released on bail on his furnishing a 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. 4 (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 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