1 2026:CGHC:21417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4192 of 2026 Wasim Akram S/o Mushtaq Siddiqui Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Village- Phuljhar, Police Station- Champa, Post Office- Sanna, District- Jashpur (C.G.), Presently R/o Rasulpur, Mominpura, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Bagbahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/05/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 124/2024 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District- AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 & 34 of Indian Panal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.08.2024, the complainant lodged a written complaint alleging that he received an RC Book through courier pertaining to a vehicle bearing registration No. CG 29 AG 1344, dated 06.02.2024, which was registered in his name and financed by Hinduja Leyland Finance. The complainant alleged that neither he nor any of his family members had purchased the said vehicle or submitted any documents for obtaining finance for purchase of any vehicle during the relevant period. It was further alleged that photocopies of his documents, which had been stolen from the dickey of his vehicle, were misused by the applicant and other co-accused persons for obtaining finance and registration of the aforesaid vehicle. On the basis of the said allegations, the present crime was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons, and they were arrested in connection with the case. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in MCRC Nos.2487 of 2025, thereafter the applicant has preferred present second bail application on the ground that there are total 57 witnesses in the case, out of which, the statement of only 3 witnesses have been recorded till date 3 and the applicant is in jail since 03.11.2024, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has two criminal antecedents and in the said two cases, applicant has been granted bail vide orders dated 11.12.2025 and 09.04.2026 passed in CRMP No.3050 of 2025 and MCRC No.1263 of 2026, respectively, hence, she prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 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 further submits that the allegation against the present applicant is that he, along with other co-accused persons, fraudulently misused the stolen photocopies of the complainant’s documents for obtaining finance and registration of vehicle bearing registration No. CG 29 AG 1344 in the complainant’s name without his knowledge or consent. Furthermore, the applicant has two criminal antecedents against him, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail applications of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in MCRC Nos.2487 of 2025 on the ground that applicant the role attributed to the present applicant is more serious than 4 the co-accused, who was granted bail, but considering the fact that, two more cases were registered against the applicant, in which, he has been granted bail vide orders dated 11.12.2025 and 09.04.2026 passed in CRMP No.3050 of 2025 and MCRC No.1263 of 2026, so far as the status of trial is concerned, there are as many as 57 witnesses in the present case, out of which, the statement of 3 witnesses have been recorded till dated, thus the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time for its conclusion, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Wasim Akram, involved in Crime No. 124/2024 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 379 & 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 5 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 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 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil