1 2026:CGHC:1947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 92 of 2026 Jogendar Kumar S/o Amindas Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Devichak, Police Station- Rikhiya, District Devghar, Jharkhand ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District- Magistrate- Kabirdham, The Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station- Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 6071/2025, vide order dated 01.08.2025 on merits. Hence, this second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, it is alleged that on 26.02.2025 the complainant lodged a written complaint against unknown persons stating that a sum of Rs. 6,66,853/- had been deducted from his bank account maintained with the Central Bank of India, Branch Kawardha, bearing Account No. 5109757473, on 24.02.2025. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaints with the concerned bank and the police station. During due investigation, it was found from the bank statement of the complainant that on various dates up to 24.02.2025, the said amount was transferred to various bank accounts of other co-accused persons. Further, during investigation by the Cyber Police, it was found that nine installments of Rs. 99,900/- and Rs. 98,000/- were transacted to the Amazon Valet merchant account of the present applicant, having mobile number 9207691315. The said amount was further transferred online to different accounts via UPI. Therafter, the applicant and other co-accused was arrested on 08.05.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 66 and 66(C), registered as Crime No. 77/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 6071/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 on merits. Hence, the present application is the second bail application. The new ground for filing the present application is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.05.2025. So far as the status of the trial is concerned, charges were framed 3 against the applicant on 18.08.2025, and thereafter no prosecution witness has appeared before the trial Court for recording of evidence, as is evident from the order-sheet of the trial Court annexed herewith. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Looking to the present status of the case, it is apparent that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 6071/2025, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 on merits. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the period of detention of the applicant since 08.05.2025, the fact that charges have already been framed on 18.08.2025 and no prosecution witness has been examined thereafter, as is evident from the order-sheet of the trial Court and further taking into account that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 4 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant – Jogendar Kumar, involved in Crime No. 77/2025 registered at Police Station, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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. 5 (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. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 11. OfÏce 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 Kunal