1 2026:CGHC:5602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9982 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Gupta S/o Ayodhya Prasad Aged About 29 Years Caste Baniya, Occupation Busniess, R/o Village Darima, Chowkpara, Thana Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ayodhya Prasad Gupta S/o Banwari Prasad Gupta Aged About 60 Years Caste Baniya, Occupation Busniess, R/o Village Darima, Chowkpara, Thana Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Geeta Devi W/o Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Aged About 55 Years Caste Baniya, Occupation Busniess, R/o Village Darima, Chowkpara, Thana Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Dhaurpur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/01/2026 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 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.02 10:56:28 +0530 2 bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.52/2020 registered at Police Station – Dhaurpur District - Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that, the complainant Rajmati alleged that co-accused Anmate Bai collected 5,000 each from her ₹ and about 38 other women on the pretext of arranging a loan of ₹25,000 and thereafter misappropriated the remaining loan amount without paying the instalments, thereby committing fraud. During investigation, on the memorandum statement of co-accused Anmate Bai, it was alleged that the loan dealings were done at the instance of Harvansh Nayak and Rajesh Gupta and that the remaining amount was taken by Rajesh Gupta. The police also seized four stamp papers purportedly containing acknowledgements of repayment by Aayodhya Prasad Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and Geeta Devi. Subsequently, Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that on the basis of bald and baseless suspicion, as they neither signed any document nor received any amount in connection with the alleged offence. It is submitted that although the FIR was registered in the year 2020, the applicants were implicated only in November 2025, solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, and such unexplained and extraordinary delay renders the prosecution story highly doubtful and weakens the presumption of their involvement. The names of the applicants do not find mention in 3 the FIR, nor does the initial version of the complainant contain any allegation connecting them with the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to produce any independent or corroborative material to establish the involvement of the applicants, and the entire case against them rests only on the memorandum of a co-accused, which by itself has no evidentiary value. It is further submitted that the applicants fully cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the police on several occasions, and provided their signature specimens, which did not match the disputed signatures, and no forensic report attributes any forged document to them, thereby clearly ruling out their role in the alleged forgery. The applicants are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title and have deep roots in society, leaving no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and he would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicants moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and applicants are in jail since 13.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this 4 case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicants- Rajesh Gupta, Ayodhya Prasad Gupta & Geeta Devi, involved in Crime No.52/2020 registered at Police Station – Dhaurpur District - Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them, 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 vaibhav