1 2026:CGHC:6602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9550 of 2025 Uttara Kumar Sidar S/o Bansi Lal Sidar Aged About 51 Years Assistant Professor Kirodimal Government College Raigarh C.G., R/o House No. 56-H, Indira Awas, Rapara, Katahardi, Taluka And District Raigarh C.G. --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O2cer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh C.G. --- Non-Applicant Along with MCRC No. 10204 of 2025 Sanju Yadav S/o Sandesh Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Behind Zila Panchayat Chote Atarmuda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Chakradhar, Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kumar Aadil, Advocate Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two ;rst bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 475/2025, registered at Police Station : Chakradhar, Nagar, Tahsil and District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.09.2025 the complainant, namely Alain Kindo, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar stating that she is employed in the Horticulture Department under the handicapped quota and that, for securing a constable’s job in the Chhattisgarh Police for her nephew Rahul Kindo (son of handicapped person Amardan Kindo), accused Uttara Sidar, Professor of Kirodimal Government Arts and Science College, initially demanded Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.30,000/- was paid, and thereafter accused Sanju Yadav, Computer Operator of the said college, demanded and received Rs.20,000/- and represented that the amount of Rs.50,000/- had been handed over to Vikas Sidar of Raipur, it is further alleged that 3 the complainant subsequently paid various amounts to di?erent accused persons, including Rs.2,50,000/- to Vikas Sidar near Collectorate Temple on 14.04.2024, additional sums arranged through relatives and personal sources totalling Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- deposited in Aman Yadav’s HDFC Bank account after cancellation of insurance, Rs.30,000/- transferred via UPI to Sevak Chauhan on 11.03.2025, Rs.2,50,000/- borrowed on interest and given to Moolchand Kawar on 21.03.2025, and Rs.3,00,000/- paid to Singh on 11.04.2025 after selling jewellery, whereby a total amount of about Rs.11,30,000/- is alleged to have been dishonestly obtained from her on the false pretext of securing employment, on the basis of the said allegations, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar registered Crime No.475/2025 for o?ences under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, took up investigation, and thereafter arrested the accused persons, hence the present bail applications. 4. Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and have not committed any o?ence, a false report has been lodged against the applicants. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any o?ence punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and that the report has been lodged with a mala de intention only to falsely implicate the present applicants. It is further contended that the applicants are innocent and have never committed any act as alleged, and that the 4 complainant lodged the F.I.R. without proper veri;cation of the true and correct facts. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are stated to be general, vague, and omnibus in nature, not disclosing the essential ingredients of the alleged o?ences. It is also submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about ;ve months in lodging the F.I.R., which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. They further argue that no amount of money was ever transferred to, or received by, the present applicants, yet they have been falsely implicated in the case. They also submit that the applicants are in jail since 26.10.2025, they have no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been ;led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, they pray for grant of bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been ;led in the present case. He further submits that both the applicants are involved in a well-planned act of cheating and forgery whereby, on the false pretext of securing government employment, a substantial amount of about Rs.11,30,000/- was dishonestly obtained from the complainant through di?erent modes of payment and in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. It is contended that the investigation has revealed speci;c roles of the present applicants, the o?ence is serious in nature a?ecting public con;dence. Therefore, considering the gravity of the o?ence and the material collected during investigation, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicants, on the false pretext of securing government employment, a substantial amount of about Rs.11,30,000/- was dishonestly obtained from the complainant through di?erent modes of payment and in conspiracy with other co-accused persons, but in the present bail applications the charge-sheet has been ;led before the competent Court, they have no previous criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 26.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants – Uttara Kumar Sidar and Sanju Yadav, involved in Crime No. 475/2025, registered at Police Station : Chakradhar, Nagar, Tahsil and District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing 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 ;le an undertaking to the e?ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ;xed 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 6 liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date ;xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su2cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date ;xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ;xed 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 su2cient 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. 9. O2ce is directed to provide a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan