1 2026:CGHC:20743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3102 of 2026 1 - Deendayal Jangade S/o Asharam Jangade, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Dhourabhatha, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Purushottam Jangade S/o Deendayal Jangade, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dhourabhatha, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Palari, District Balodabazzar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) --- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.05 18:45:02 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.452/2025, registered at Police Station : Palari, District Balodabazzar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 Read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. That, the prosecution story in brief is that the complainant, namely Nohar Yadav, lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police stating that on 18.10.2022, the applicants took a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from him on the pretext of doubling the amount, but failed to do so, and when the complainant demanded his money back, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences, whereupon the police registered a crime against the applicants and, during the course of investigation, recorded statements of witnesses and subsequently arrested the applicants in connection with the said offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and have neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to collect 3 any credible evidence to prima facie establish the guilt of the applicants and the case is based merely on unsubstantiated allegations without any proof of payment. It is also submitted that the applicants are in custody since 18.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicants, and there are specific allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation. It is further submitted that the applicants have criminal antecedents, and the applicants are in custody since 18.02.2026 therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of allegations, the absence of prima facie material to substantiate the claim of payment, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and further taking into account that the applicants are in custody 4 since 18.02.2026 and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, this Court is of the considered view that further custodial detention of the applicants is not warranted and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicants – Deendayal Jangade & Purushottam Jangade, involved in Crime No.452/2025, registered at Police Station : Palari, District Balodabazzar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 Read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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. 5 (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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail 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 6 against him, in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan