1 2026:CGHC:21722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1313 of 2026 Vishal Kumar S/o Shri Rajeev Kumar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Teachers Colony, Sabzi Market, Police Station- Town, District - Madhubani (Bihar) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Amanaka, District – Raipur, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 286/2025registered at Police Station - Amanaka, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 336(2), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As per the prosecution, on 30.08.2025, during a vehicle checking drive at Chandanidih, Raipur, the police allegedly stopped one Activa scooter bearing registration No. MP-04-YJ-1386 driven by the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. When the police attempted to initiate challan PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.08 19:39:54 +0530 2 proceedings, the applicant allegedly introduced himself as an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) and produced an identity card purportedly issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Upon verification, the said I.D. card was allegedly found to be forged. Based on this allegation, the applicant was arrested on 31.08.2025 and sent to judicial custody. The police have filed a charge sheet against him under Sections 318(2), 336(2), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that he prepared and used a forged document to misrepresent himself as an Intelligence Bureau officer to evade legal proceedings and to cheat members of the public. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged forged identity card has not been proved to be prepared, used, or possessed by the applicant with dishonest intention. There is no independent or forensic evidence demonstrating that the applicant himself fabricated the said I.D. card or used it to deceive any person. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 31.08.2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the present applicant be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, particularly the 3 fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and despite granting two opportunities to the learned State counsel to place on record the criminal antecedents of the applicant, no such antecedents could be produced, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 31.08.2025, and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Vishal Kumar, involved in Crime No. 286/2025registered at Police Station - Amanaka, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 336(2), 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, be released on bail on his furnishing 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation 4 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 her, 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 her 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