1 2026:CGHC:7871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1548 of 2026 Afjal Hussain @ Afzal Qureshi @ Abdul Husain S/o Mustak Husain Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 33, Near Of Digvijay Ward, Siyaram Gali , P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officers P.S. City Kotwali , District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate appears through V.C. and assisted by Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 12.02.2026 1. Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 53/2024 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Tahsil & District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 419, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/ 34 and 120(B) of IPC. First bail application of the present applicant was withdrawn vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No. 4352 of 2025. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.13 10:52:34 +0530 2 Thereafter the second bail application of present applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 04.08.2025 in MCRC No. 5556 of 2025. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, applicant has procured money from complainant Santosh Kumar Dhurve on the pretext that he will provide government job to his son in police department. Initially, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to present applicant and after passing of physical test, applicant made further demand of Rs. 50,000/- and accordingly, from time to time and at different stages of recruitment process, money was demanded by applicant which was being paid to him and other co- accused persons. Incident was reported to concerned police station based upon which aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested on 15.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. He further submits that second bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2025 on merits. After dismissal of the said bail application many of the witnesses have been examined including material witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 15.04.2024 and thereby he has completed about 01 year and 10 months of pre-trial detention. He also submits that out of total 29 witnesses only 12 have been examined till now, hence applicant be enlarged on bail. He lastly submits that one co-accused namely Amit Singh has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No. 10561 of 2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State raises an objection and would submit that witnesses were examined before the learned trial 3 court and they have specifically taken the name of present applicant. However, he do not dispute the fact that there are total 29 witnesses enlisted in the charge-sheet and further submits that the allegation against co-accused are of procuring Rs. 3,25,000/- in total from the complainant and further Rs. 2,00,000/- from one Chandrapal Netam. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, the submission made by learned counsel for respective parties and also considering the period of pre-trial detention from 15.04.2025, trial is likely to take time for its conclusion, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (c) 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. (d) 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. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza JUDGE