1 2026:CGHC:23016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4554 of 2026 Virendra Dahriya S/o Vijay Dahriya Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Chicha Sector- 27, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Balod District- Balod (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 612/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a written complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that the co-accused, namely, Kholbahra Ram PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.15 17:43:04 +0530 2 Nishad, Chandrahas Kariyam, and Sarita Kariyam, lured the villagers by inducing the women of the village to form groups consisting of 3–4 members. It was represented to them that loans would be arranged from banks in the names of such groups and that each woman would receive 10% of the loan amount, while the remaining amount would be retained by the aforesaid co-accused for further investment. The co-accused also assured the villagers that they themselves would repay the installments of the said loans. Acting upon the assurances and inducement given by Kholbahra Ram Nishad, Chandrahas Kariyam, and Sarita Kariyam, the villagers applied for loans through them. After receiving their commission of 10%, the villagers handed over the remaining loan amount to the aforesaid co-accused. It has further been alleged that when the recovery agents approached the borrowers for repayment of the loan installments, the villagers came to know that they had been cheated and defrauded by Kholbahra Ram Nishad, Chandrahas Kariyam, and Sarita Kariyam. During the course of investigation, the aforesaid co-accused persons were arrested by the police. In the further course of investigation, the name of the present applicant was also added alleging that he acted as a collection agent. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Kumar Jangde, whose first bail application was rejected by this Court, preferred a second bail application which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4244/2026. The said bail was granted on the grounds that there are 246 prosecution witnesses cited in the present case, out of which only 13 witnesses have been examined so far. It is further submitted that, out of the five criminal antecedents attributed 3 to the applicant, he has already been granted bail in four cases by the concerned trial Court. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.07.2025. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person has already been granted second bail by this Court. He further submits that first bail applications of the two co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 and 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4048/2025 and 4688/2025, respectively. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that one of the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Kumar Jangde, whose first bail application was rejected by this Court, preferred a second bail application which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4244/2026, on the grounds that there are 246 prosecution witnesses cited in the present case, out of which only 13 witnesses have been examined so far, further considering the fact that out of the five criminal antecedents attributed to the applicant, he has already been granted bail in four cases by the concerned trial Court, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I 4 am inclined to allow this application on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Virendra Dahriya, involved in Crime No. 612/2024, registered at Police Station – Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 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 5 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 Preeti