1 2026:CGHC:6627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10516 of 2025 Rushikesh @ Rishikesh Joshi S/o Late Vijay Anant Joshi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Pratik Apartment Yashvinagar Balkum Road Thane West Plot No. 11, District Thane Maharashtra. (Father Name Vikas Joshi Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Newai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Renuka A. Shukla and Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 0 5.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 156/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4)/420, 338/467, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.06 17:29:10 +0530 2 336(3)/468, 340(2)/471, 3(5)/34 of the BNS, 2023/ IPC. (IPC wrongly mentioned in order-sheet). 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the present applicant has been shown as an accused only on the basis of a statement made by a co- accused during the course of investigation. The prosecution alleges that certain amounts were deposited in the account of "co-accused," and, without any substantive material, the applicant is connected with these transactions. Relying on this assumption, the investigating agency has implicated the applicant, treating the co-accused's uncorroborated statement as the primary foundation of the case. However, the prosecution story itself reveals significant gaps: the co- accused, whose statement is relied upon, has no direct relationship, business transaction, or financial dealing with the applicant. Despite this, the prosecution claims that the applicant is somehow linked to the alleged crime. The charge sheet does not disclose any investigation into the identity of the person who actually deposited the amount into the co-accused account, nor does it clarify whether such person has any connection with the applicant. No independent witness, electronic evidence, document, or material has been collected to support the allegation. On the basis of the above background, offence has been registered against the present applicant and after completing the investigation, chargesheet has been filed. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR do not assign any specific or direct role to the applicant in the 3 alleged cheating. There is no material to show that he participated in, facilitated, or benefited from any transaction with the complainant. The entire prosecution case against the applicant appears to be based on suspicion and vague assertions rather than concrete evidence. He further submits that only on the statement of the co-accused, it has come that the applicant has received Rs.4,000/- commission from the alleged transaction, as such, nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. This apart, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he has been in judicial custody since 21.06.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant has received Rs.4,000/- as commission from the alleged transaction. He further submits that one co-accused, namely, Shubham Shrivastava’s bail application bearing MCRC No.8373/2025 has been rejected by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and further considering that it has been alleged only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused that the applicant received an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as commission, and that, although the bail application of the co-accused has been rejected by this Court, the case of the 4 present applicant stands on a different footing and is distinguishable from that of the co-accused, and also considering that the charge- sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.06.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Rushikesh @ Rishikesh Joshi, involved in Crime No.156/2025 registered at Police Station – Newai, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4)/420, 338/467, 336(3)/468, 340(2)/471, 3(5)/34 of the BNS/IPC, (IPC wrongly mentioned in the order-sheet) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 5 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti