1 2026:CGHC:19400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 981 of 2026 1 - Biseshwar Markandey @ Besesar Markandey S/o Sampat Lal Markandey Aged About 58 Years R/o Chhar Bhata, Thekua, Satnami Para P.S. Ranitarai District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Pramod Markandey @ Rahul Markandey S/o Biseshwar Markandey @ Besesar Markandey Aged About 23 Years R/o Chhar Bhata, Thekua, Satnami Para P.S. Ranitarai District- Durg (C.G.) --- Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Utai District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate appeared through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilange, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 466/2025, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 420, 120B & 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, a social worker, lodged a complaint on 18.11.2025 alleging that the present applicants, along with three other co-accused persons, had collected a total amount of Rs. 33,50,000/- from 32 individuals on the pretext of securing employment for them in the Indian Railways Warehouse (Maal Godam) within a period of three months, during the period from 24.12.2022 to 24.04.2023. However, despite receipt of the said amount, no employment was provided, which led to the lodging of the present FIR. It is further the case of the prosecution that, upon investigation, no incriminating material was found against two of the accused persons, and accordingly, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the three accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicants who are father and son are innocent persons who have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no possibility of the applicantd tampering with the evidence or creating any hindrance in the due process of law. Keeping the applicantd behind bars for an indefinite period would amount to pre-trial punishment, which needs to be avoided. He further submits that their detention will adversely affect the entire family. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Hemant Kumar 3 Sahu had already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.656/2026 decided on 19.01.2026. He submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 21.11.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and further from perusal of the order- sheet dated 29.01.2026, the bail application was earlier adjourned to the last week of April, 2026 in view of the period of detention. The charge sheet has already been filed, the applicants have been in custody since 21.11.2025 and the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. The co- accused, namely, Hemant Kumar Sahu had already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.656/2026 decided on 19.01.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the applicants – Biseshwar Markandey @ Besesar 4 Markandey and Pramod Markandey @ Rahul Markandey, involved in Crime No. 466/2025, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them, 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 Saxena