1 2026:CGHC:708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10447 of 2025 Labhesh Kumar @ Lucky Sahu S/o Chetanlal Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sakrelikala, P.S. Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.329/2025, registered at Police Station- Sakti, District : Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, the complainant, Amar Singh Kanwar, lodged a written report at Police Station Sakti with intent KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that the present applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, entered into a pre-planned criminal conspiracy. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the applicant deceitfully obtained a cheque from the bank account of the complainant by misleading the complainant’s minor son. Thereafter, by forging the signature on the said cheque, the applicant illegally and unauthorizedly withdrew an amount of ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs). Thus, the applicant allegedly committed acts of cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents, and unlawfully took advantage of the ignorance and minority of the complainant’s son. Upon coming to know about the said illegal acts, the complainant lodged the present First Information Report against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is an unexplained delay of about 138 days in lodging the FIR, which seriously dents the credibility of the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main accused, namely Arman Singh, who himself is the son of the complainant and is alleged to have forged the signature and withdrawn the amount. The applicant has no direct role in the alleged forgery. He further submits that one co-accused, Deepak Kurre, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8762/2025, vide order dated 08.12.2025 and both juvenile co-accused have also been enlarged on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, therefore, the applicant is entitled to parity. He lastly submits that the applicant is a student pursuing 3 graduation, and continued incarceration would seriously prejudice his academic career and future and in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that as per the prosecution case, the present applicant, in active connivance with other co-accused persons, was a part of a pre- planned criminal conspiracy, pursuant to which he deceitfully obtained a cheque from the complainant’s bank account by misleading the complainant’s minor son and thereafter forged the signature on the cheque and unauthorizedly withdrew a huge amount of ₹8,00,000/-. The offences alleged are serious in nature involving cheating, forgery and misuse of forged documents, wherein the applicant took undue advantage of the ignorance and minority of the complainant’s son. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and the role attributed to the applicant, he does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the unexplained delay of about 138 days in lodging of the FIR which prima facie creates doubt regarding the prosecution version and further considering that the applicant has been implicated mainly on the basis of the 4 memorandum statement of the co-accused, namely Arman Singh, who is the son of the complainant, as also considering the fact that one co-accused, Deepak Kurre, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8762/2025, vide order dated 08.12.2025 and the juvenile co-accused have also been enlarged on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, thereby entitling the applicant to parity and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Labhesh Kumar @ Lucky Sahu, involved in Crime No.329/2025, registered at Police Station- Sakti, District : Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 9. OfÏce 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 Kunal