1 2025:CGHC:59514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8556 of 2025 Mohan Kumar Yadav S/o Bhramdev Yadav ( Aged About 29 Years (Brahmadev Yadav Has Mentioned In Adhar Card) R/o Village Palani, P.S. Manpur, Distt. Nalanda, Bihar. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12 .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. 10/2025, registered at Police Station – Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 238, 336, 338 and 340 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that, on the date of the incident, an amount of Rs. 2,46,500/- had been transferred to an PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.09 10:50:38 +0530 2 unknown bank account and a further amount of Rs. 21,375/- was transferred through PayTM. In this manner, a total sum of Rs. 2,67,875/- was allegedly embezzled. Based on the complaint, the police registered an offence under Sections 318(4), 238, 336, 338, and 340 of the I.P.C. against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the applicant merely on the basis of suspicion. 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 submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.08.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted on 16.10.2025. He further submits that in compliance with the Court’s order dated 29.10.2025, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant, from which it transpires that the applicant is not the account holder of Account No. 309026917281, 20200071426375, 1687019163271530, 128978100006150 and 77069504189 and no amount has ever been transferred or deposited in any bank account belonging to the applicant. The complainant has alleged transfer of an amount of Rs. 2,67,875/- into two mobile numbers/SIM cards bearing Mob. No. 9883513840 and 8101218112 which are not related to or not owned by the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the alleged memorandum statement and on the basis of the cash amount allegedly received from the applicant, which the applicant denies having received from the complainant. The applicant is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. The implication of the applicant is based merely on suspicion and conjecture, further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, hence, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the 3 present case. He further submits that as per the case diary, the complainant, who deals in the sale of iron rods and cement tiles, searched “Kamdhenu TMT Ltd.” on Google, after which he received a call from a person introducing himself as a representative of Kamdhenu Limited. During the conversation, the complainant was induced by the accused persons through repeated calls and a forged estimate sent via WhatsApp, containing bank account details, IFSC code, office address, and other documents to make it appear genuine. Believing the information to be authentic, the complainant transferred Rs.2,46,500 from his bank account and Rs.21,375 via Paytm to the stated RBL Bank account. However, no goods were delivered, and a total amount of Rs.2,67,875/- was dishonestly misappropriated, therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that, in compliance with the Court’s order dated 29.10.2025, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant, from which it transpires that the applicant is not the account holder of Account Nos. 309026917281,20200071426375,128978100006150,16870191632715 30, and 77069504189, and that no amount has ever been transferred to or deposited in any bank account belonging to the applicant, further, the complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs. 2,67,875/- was transferred to two mobile numbers/SIM cards bearing Nos. 9883513840 and 8101218112, which are neither related to nor owned by the applicant, and considering that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, the applicant is in jail since 24.08.2025 and charge sheet has already 4 been filed, the 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Mohan Kumar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 10/2025, registered at Police Station – Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 238, 336, 338 and 340 of Indian Penal Code, 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 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 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. 5 (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