1 2026:CGHC:4649-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2 of 2026 1 - Ravi Kumar Jatwar S/o Shri Arun Jatwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Amaldiha, Police Station Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) :Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 28/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, by the appellant/accused, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.I.A. Act), ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.30 10:47:44 +0530 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appellant’s application for bail in connection with Crime No. 455/2023, registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 420, 489-D, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.11.2023, complainant Khemraj lodged a First Information Report stating that about ten days prior thereto, he came in contact with co- accused Pilaram Yadav, resident of Village Bareli, Police Station Giridhpuri, who informed him that a person supplies counterfeit currency notes resembling genuine notes in exchange for genuine currency in the ratio of Rs.1,00,000/- for Rs.15,00,000/-. The co- accused Pilaram Yadav facilitated telephonic conversation between the complainant and the present appellant/accused Ravi Kumar Jatwar. Thereafter, the appellant/accused and co-accused Pilaram Yadav assured the complainant that they had earlier supplied such counterfeit notes at many places. Believing their representations, the complainant reached Pavni Mod on 26.11.2023 and, as instructed by the accused persons, transferred Rs.10,000/- to IDFC Bank Account No.10154758464 belonging to Sonia Banjare. After sending the screenshot of the transaction, the appellant/accused along with co-accused Rahul Jatwar and Pitambar Pankaj came to Pavni Mod and obtained the remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- in cash from the complainant. 3 The accused persons promised to deliver the counterfeit currency near Tundri Barrier on 27.11.2023. However, on the said date, the complainant was made to wait for a long time and thereafter the mobile phones of the accused persons were switched off. Upon demanding return of money from co-accused Pilaram Yadav, the complainant was threatened with dire consequences. 3. During investigation, on the memorandum statements of co- accused persons, the police recovered a numberless Pulsar motorcycle, one button-operated knife, ten currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination from co-accused Rahul Jatwar and iodine hydra powder along with three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from co-accused Pitambar Prasad Pankaj. During the course of investigation, the present appellant/accused was found absconding. It is further revealed from the case diary that in the memorandum statement of the present appellant/accused, he has admitted acquaintance with co-accused Rahul Jatwar, Pitambar and Pilaram and has disclosed details regarding preparation of counterfeit notes and cheating people, including his own role in the commission of the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant and has not committed the offence as alleged. It is contended that a prima facie reading of the prosecution report itself indicates that the complainant is involved in the business of counterfeit currency notes and, owing 4 to a dispute that arose between the complainant and the co- accused persons, the appellant along with his brother has been falsely implicated in a fabricated case. It is further submitted that the mobile number from which the alleged call was made to the complainant does not belong to the appellant. The appellant has been in judicial custody since 23.11.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, therefore, continued detention of the appellant is unjustified. It is also urged that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court in MCRC No. 612/2024 dated 19.02.2024 and MCRC No. 2218/2024 dated 10.04.2024 and the case of the appellant stands on the same footing, a copy of the bail order of the co-accused having been filed as Annexure A-3. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge committed an error of law in rejecting the appellant’s bail application on the ground that he had absconded for two years, whereas the appellant was in fact outside the State for earning his livelihood. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent material establishing the appellant’s involvement in the alleged offence. The appellant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 5 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes the present appeal and submits that the case diary clearly reveals the active involvement of the appellant in an organised racket of cheating and circulation of counterfeit currency notes. The appellant induced the complainant to part with money, remained in direct contact with the complainant, and actively participated in the transaction, while recoveries of incriminating articles from co- accused persons duly corroborate the prosecution case. The appellant remained absconding for a considerable period after registration of the offence on 27.11.2023 and was arrested only on 23.11.2025. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the organised nature of the crime, the conduct of the appellant in absconding, and the fact that the trial is in progress, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Upon perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the appellant remained absconding for a considerable period after registration of the offence on 27.11.2023 and was arrested only on 23.11.2025, thereby deliberately evading the process of law. The conduct of the appellant in absconding disentitles him to the discretionary relief of bail. Considering the prolonged abscondence and the fact that the trial is in progress, this Court is 6 not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the appellant, his previous conduct of absconding, and the present stage of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. 9. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- S Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok