1 2025:CGHC:60593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10301 of 2025 Goutam Rathore S/o Shri Ramnarayan Rathore Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kosmanda, P.S. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Also Mentioned In Impugned Order As State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.12 .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. 450/2025, registered at Police Station – Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 {420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC} 2. The prosecution alleges that Baleshwar Sahu, Manager of Seva Sahakari Samiti Bamhanidih, and salesman Gautam Rathore exploited their close relationship with the complainant, Rajkumar Sharma. On the pretext of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.12 19:27:24 +0530 2 helping him obtain low-interest agricultural loans, they collected his bank passbooks, land documents, and later his HDFC Bank cheque books containing signed blank cheques. Without informing him, they allegedly withdrew Rs.16.3 lakh and Rs.7.5 lakh from his HDFC accounts, claiming that the money was used for Rathore’s assembly election expenses and assuring him that it would be repaid. Subsequent inquiries revealed additional unauthorized withdrawals totaling Rs.42.78 lakh from the accounts of the complainant, his mother, and his wife between 2015 and 2020, using forged signatures and thumb impressions. The case is still under investigation. 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 had challenged the FIR of the present case along with the co-accused, namely, Baleshwar Sahu, in W.P.(Cr.) No. 556/2025 before this Court. However, one day prior to the passing of the said order, the present applicant was arrested, and this Court stayed the arrest of applicant No. 1, Baleshwar Sahu. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant and his wife were also arrested in another case, i.e., Crime No. 470/2025, and both of them were granted bail by this Court in M.C.R.C.A. No. 1683/2025 and M.C.R.C. No. 9767/2025 vide orders dated 13.11.2025 and 03.12.2025, respectively. It is further stated that the present case pertains to the period from 2015 to 2020, whereas the FIR was lodged after five years, i.e., in 2025. In Crime No. 169/2015 under Sections 294, 323, 506- B (Criminal Case No. 472/2015), the applicant has already been acquitted on the basis of a compromise vide order dated 10.09.2016 passed in Lok Adalat. In Crime No. 14/2021 registered at Police Station Saragaon, District Janjgir–Champa, under Sections 147, 294, 323, 452, and 506 of the IPC, the matter is still pending. Though in the impugned 3 order it is mentioned that the applicant is also involved in Crime No. 60/2002 registered at Police Station Champa under Sections 312, 294, 506 of the IPC and Crime No. 175/2005 under Sections 341, 294, 323 of the IPC, it is submitted that both these cases do not relate to the applicant, and he has no connection with these crime numbers. The charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case, and the applicant has been in jail since 15.10.2025. As the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, the learned counsel 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 not been filed in the present case. 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 the applicant had challenged the FIR of the present case along with the co-accused, namely, Baleshwar Sahu, in W.P.(Cr.) No. 556/2025 before this Court, however, one day prior to the passing of the said order, the present applicant was arrested, and this Court stayed the arrest of applicant No. 1, Baleshwar Sahu, thereafter, the petitioner/applicant and his wife were also arrested in another case, i.e., Crime No. 470/2025, and both of them were granted bail by this Court in M.C.R.C.A. No. 1683/2025 and M.C.R.C. No. 9767/2025 vide orders dated 13.11.2025 and 03.12.2025, respectively the charge-sheet has not been filed in this case and, the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2025, 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - 4 Goutam Rathore, respectively involved in Crime No. 450/2025, registered at Police Station – Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 {420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC}, 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. (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 5 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