Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14908 (CHH)

ARUN KUMAR MESHRAM v. STATE OF C.G.

MCRC/202/2026 · 2026-01-08

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:1418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 202 of 2026 Arun Kumar Meshram S/o Lakhan Lal Meshram Aged About 53 Years R/o NXG-56, Ward-33, Suncity Kanchanbagh, Thana - Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Bhirawahi, Near Government School, Thana, Tehsil And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of C.G. Through Police Station- Pulgaon, Op-Anjora, Distt.- Durg, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 0 9.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 363/2025, registered at Police Station- Pulgaon, OP- Anjora, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Bhesharam Deshmukh, his son Ravikant, and associate Arun Meshram fraudulently lured the complainant, Santaram Deshmukh, by falsely promising government peon jobs in the Ministry at Raipur for his son and son-in-law. They demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for arranging the appointments and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.09 17:54:53 +0530 2 received this amount in cash on 02.07.2022 at Bhesharam's government quarter in Anjora. After taking the money and documents, the accused kept delaying the matter on various pretexts and finally stopped responding. When the complainant verified at the Ministry, he learned that neither Arun Meshram nor Ravikant held any job there. Later, several other victims also reported being similarly cheated by the same accused for different amounts. Thus, the accused collectively committed cheating and dishonestly took money without providing any job. An FIR was lodged, and the accused were arrested for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC. Hence, the bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused. He further submits that two co-accused persons, namely, Bheshram Deshmukh and Ravikant Deshmukh have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9506/2025. He also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the 3 fact that only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused, further two co-accused persons, namely, Bheshram Deshmukh and Ravikant Deshmukh have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9506/2025, moreover the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Arun Kumar Meshram, respectively involved in Crime No. 363/2025, registered at Police Station- Pulgaon, OP- Anjora, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, 4 proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants 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 her in accordance with law. 8. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case also who claims to have been cheated by the applicant herein, as the conduct of the complainant amounts to give bribe for obtaining employment through illegal mode. 9. 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 Preeti