1 2025:CGHC:58873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9907 of 2025 Shahjada Urf Raju Khan S/o Vaj Khan Aged About 40 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Raj Khan In Impugend Order ) R/o Housing Board Colony Chilhati Chowk, Mopka P.S. Sarkanda District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Pendra, District- Gaurela - Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 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. 160/2025 registered at Police Station Pendra, District – Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the brief prosecution story, the complainant, Chandrapritam Singh, was the Sarpanch of Village Khardi during the period 2019–2024. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.05 18:28:59 +0530 2 On 05.05.2023, the applicant allegedly met him and informed him that he was the O.S.D. to Minister Premsay Singh Tekam, and that he could help in obtaining approval for certain development works in the Panchayat. The applicant then took Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the allegation of receiving Rs. 50,000/- is incorrect, and that it was the complainant himself who wanted the applicant to assist him in getting illegal work done. It is stated that only Rs. 15,000/- was paid, that too through PhonePe. He further submits that the incident allegedly took place on 05.05.2023, whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.05.2025, and the delay in lodging the FIR has not been properly explained. He also submits that although the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents, 5 cases are of a preventive nature, and the remaining cases, which pertain to the years 2002 to 2007, have already been disposed of. Only one case under Section 318(2) of the BNS of the year 2025 is still pending. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that, in view of the applicant’s criminal antecedents, his bail application deserves to be dismissed. 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, particularly that the incident allegedly took place on 05.05.2023, whereas 3 the FIR was lodged on 17.05.2025 and the delay in lodging the FIR has not been properly explained, further, although the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents, 5 of them are of a preventive nature and the remaining cases, pertaining to the years 2002 to 2007, have already been disposed of, and only one case under Section 318(2) of the BNS for the year 2025 is still pending, moreover, considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and that the applicant has been in custody since 06.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Shahjada Urf Raju Khan, involved in Crime No. 160/2025 registered at Police Station Pendra, District – Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during 4 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