1 2026:CGHC:960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 22 of 2026 Nagesh Kumar Dhara S/o Late Janardan Dhara Aged About 52 Years R/o Ramdas Nagar Kasargod, P.S. Kasargod, Distt.- Kasargod, Kerala. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. For Objector : Ms. Mamta Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/01/2026 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 bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 158/2024 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Sections 420, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, induced the complainant Ranjeet Singh Pannu on the pretext of providing a dealership of “Let’s Travel Agency” and dishonestly obtained a total amount of ₹84,00,000/-. It is alleged that after receiving the said amount, the accused failed to provide the promised dealership, thereby cheating the complainant and committing the alleged offence. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that applicant is engaged in the business of a travel agency as well as trading activities and had organized a two-day trading workshop at Raipur, which was also attended by the complainant. The complainant invested money in trading on his own for earning profit; however, the investment resulted in loss. The said fact has been deliberately suppressed by the complainant, who has falsely alleged that the money was paid for obtaining dealership of the travel agency. He also submits hat the alleged loss of money occurred due to commercial and trading risks, which does not constitute any criminal offence. Further, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a 52-year-old person suffering from multiple medical 3 ailments and requires constant medical supervision. The applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which, one is of the year 2019 under the IPC in the State of Karnataka and one is of the year 2025 under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have cheated the complainant Ranjeet Singh Pannu by dishonestly obtaining Rs.84,00,000/- on the pretext of providing a dealership of “Let’s Travel Agency” and then failed to provide the promised dealership, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that present applicant has two criminal antecedents of identical nature, out of which, one is of the year 2019 under the IPC in the State of Karnataka and one is of the year 2025 under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the applicant is a habitual offender and is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, and the fact that though the 4 applicant is alleged to have cheated the complainant Ranjeet Singh Pannu by dishonestly obtaining Rs.84,00,000/- on the pretext of providing a dealership of “Let’s Travel Agency” and then failed to provide the promised dealership, but considering the period of detention of the applicant i.e. since 08.03.2025, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are two in number, one is of the year 2019 under the IPC in the State of Karnataka and one is of the year 2025 under the IPC in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant-Nagesh Kumar Dhara, involved in Crime No. 158/2024 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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. 10. 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 Akhil