1 2026:CGHC:24103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4300 of 2026 Naresh Ratnakar S/o Ramdin Ratnakar Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Khamhariya P.S. Lavan District -Balod Bazar Bhatapara C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Akaltara District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2026 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. 209/2023, registered at Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Yogendra Singh VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.16 18:35:53 +0530 2 Chandel reported that compensation amount awarded towards acquisition of agricultural land was deposited in his bank account maintained with DCB Bank, Branch Khokhsa, District Janjgir-Champa. It is alleged that certain unknown persons, in connivance with the co- accused persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy and fraudulently prepared forged Aadhaar cards, bank documents and other identification records in the names of Yogendra Singh Chandel and his deceased brother Late Girdhar Singh. By using such forged documents, the accused persons allegedly opened and operated bank accounts and illegally withdrew a part of the compensation amount deposited therein. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that out of the total compensation amount of approximately Rs.24,00,000/-, a sum of about Rs.7,00,000/- was withdrawn through forged cheques and fabricated documents. The present applicant, along with co-accused Deepak Diwakar, Naresh Ratnakar, Shankar Bhardwaj, Parmeshwar Patle and Vishram Bhardwaj, is alleged to have participated in the said conspiracy. Specifically, the prosecution alleges that the applicant manipulated his Aadhaar identity to impersonate Yogendra Singh Chandel, utilized forged documents and facilitated the fraudulent withdrawal of compensation funds. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and the material collected during investigation, FIR was registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons for commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is respectfully submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged 3 against the applicant are not made out from the material collected during investigation. The only allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly received sums of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.10,000/- from certain co-accused persons in exchange for putting his signatures on some blank documents; however, such allegation by itself does not establish his participation in the alleged conspiracy or commission of any offence. There is no cogent, reliable or prima facie evidence on record connecting the applicant with the alleged criminal acts. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation or detention of the applicant is required for the purpose of investigation. The applicant is an old-aged person and his prolonged incarceration is causing serious hardship to him and severe distress to his family members. Further, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and continued detention of the applicant during the pendency of trial would amount to pre-trial punishment and would be violative of the guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause-title, where his movable and immovable properties are situated, and therefore there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. Accordingly, considering that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been 4 filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Naresh Ratnakar, involved in Crime No. 209/2023, registered at Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the IPC, be released on bail on 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 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 5 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav