1 2026:CGHC:5043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9296 of 2025 Raspal Singh Bagadiya S/o Surta Singh Bagadiya Aged About 47 Years (47 Years As Per Charge Shet) Resient Of House No.209, Ward No.29, Vrindanagar, Bhilai Supela, Police Station Jamul, Durg (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Pooja Green Apartment, Shubham Vihar Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Diya Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 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. 102/2025 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 10:50:51 +0530 2 468 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant made complaint before the Police Station Sirgitti stating therein that the applicant has taken Rs.40 lakhs and made an agreement of the land with the complainant, but the applicant is not prepare registry in favour of complainant, therefore the crime as mentioned above has been registered and filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case, as he has neither committed nor participated in any act that may constitute the offences alleged; that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences that the applicant, being a property dealer, had executed an agreement with the farmer for the sale of the said land and, on the basis of that agreement, had sold the land to the complainant, but due to a technical error in the documents, the Registry was not executed in favour of the complainant, on which basis the FIR was lodged against him that the dispute primarily pertains to the amount paid by the complainant and the ownership of the land, for which the complainant had filed no objection as noted in paragraph 7 of the order rejecting his earlier bail application; that, taking the prosecution story at its face value, the matter is purely civil in nature and no criminal offences are made out against the applicant; and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 22.04.2025, and therefore, he deserves the grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application 3 of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 22.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Raspal Singh Bagadiya, involved in Crime No. 102/2025 registered at Police Station – Sirgitti Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the IPC, 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 4 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav