1 2025:CGHC:59209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9983 of 2025 Rajkumar Barsagde S/o Late Bodhram Barsagde Aged About 57 Years R/o Yasin Colony, Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who 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), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, Sunil Kumar Behra, Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, Saraipali, lodged a written report at Police Station Saraipali alleging that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 accused persons Krishnadas, Ravishankar Patel, Hazari Prasad Chauhan, Dilip Sharma, Rajkumar Barsagade, Neelambar Vibhar, and Khirod Kumar Sahu, had committed fraud of several lakhs of rupees with the bank. It was alleged that the said accused, in collusion with goldsmiths Siyaram and Gangadhar, pledged counterfeit gold ornaments, which contained only a thin layer of gold coating, at the Indian Overseas Bank, Saraipali Branch. On this report, Crime No. 78/2025 was registered under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and investigation commenced. During investigation, Sheikh Naimuddin and Rajkumar Barsagade were taken into custody, and upon interrogation, they confessed to their involvement in the offence. After informing them of the grounds of arrest, both accused Rajkumar Barsagade and Sheikh Naimuddin were formally arrested. Perusal of the case diary further reveals that the applicant/accused, Rajkumar Barsagade, along with other bank account holders, namely Krishnadas, Ravishankar Patel, Hazari Prasad Chauhan, Dilip Sharma, Neelambar Vibhar, and Khirod Kumar Sahu, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with bank-authorized goldsmiths Siyaram Chaudhary, Gangadhar Ga Musti, and Naimuddin to pledge counterfeit gold at the Indian Overseas Bank, Saraipali, between 28.02.2024 and 16.10.2024, thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 22,86,200/- to the bank. It is further stated that thereafter the police arrested some of the accused persons along with the present applicant and, upon completion of the investigation, filed a charge- sheet before the competent Court. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Gangadhar Pushti, Siyaram Choudhari have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 in MCRC Nos. 9227/2025 and 9625/2025 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 30.08.2025, the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 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 also submits that the present applicant played an active role in the offence and was a key participant in the conspiracy to pledge counterfeit gold, causing a financial loss of Rs. 22,86,200/- to the Indian Overseas Bank. It is contended that the applicant, along with other accused persons and goldsmiths, repeatedly pledged fake gold over several months, clearly showing pre-planned and organized criminal conduct. He argues that the allegations are serious in nature, the offence involves breach of trust and cheating of a nationalized bank, and sufÏcient material has been collected during investigation to establish the applicant’s involvement. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the financial impact on the bank, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 30.08.2025, the fact that the accused persons, including the present applicant, evaluated gold ornaments submitted for loan processing, which were later found to be fake, resulting in alleged cheating and defrauding of the Bank, further the ornaments were purchased by the beneficiaries from Naim Uddin, who dealt in forged gold, but other co-accused persons, namely, Gangadhar Pushti and Siyaram Choudhari have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 in MCRC Nos. 9227/2025 and 9625/2025 respectively and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Rajkumar Barsagde, involved in Crime No. 78/2025 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 5 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 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 6 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 Rahul Dewangan