1 2026:CGHC:7395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1457 of 2026 Ramkumar Porte S/o Padum Singh Porte Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Devgarh, P/s Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Station - Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/02/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.297/2025 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120(b) of IPC. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.02.11 11:05:28 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rakesh Tiwari has lodged a report on 09.11.2025 with the allegation that in between 12.09.2017 to 15.03.2019 the applicant and others with the help of Virendra Pratap Purseth Khemraj Gupta, Sudhir Nishad employee of Shriram Finance Customers namely late Ramesh Gond resident of Navagarh Gharghoda has taken a loan on 23.03.2018 which has been provided on the assurance of the present applicant and the said Ramesh died on 27.07.2020. so, the notice for providing the remaining amount given by the finance company but due to the death of Late Ramesh the aforesaid remaining amount has not been paid and subsequently when the report has been lodged, the said transaction has also been alleged with the allegation that the applicant has taken a loan from Shriram Finance in the name of Late Ramesh and accordingly the FIR has been registered against the applicant with the allegation that he has also taken a loan from Shriram Finance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased Ramesh was alive on the date of acceptance of the loan, therefore, the allegation of obtaining a loan in the name of a dead person is wholly misconceived and no offence is made out against the applicant. He would submit that the death certificate of Ramesh clearly establishes that he was alive on the date of issuance of the loan. He would submit that co-accused namely Rajkumar Sahu has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.9787/2025 on 28/01/2026 & co-accused Virendra Pratap Purseth has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.960/2026 on 29/01/2026. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 12/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application but he do not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court. He would submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, further the fact that co-accused namely Rajkumar Sahu has been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.9787/2025 on 28/01/2026 & co-accused Virendra Pratap Purseth has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.960/2026 on 29/01/2026, period of detention of the applicant since 12/01/2026, applicant has no criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Ramkumar Porte, involved in Crime No.297/2025 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120(b) 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 4 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 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. 8. 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 gouri