1 2026:CGHC:24422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5208 of 2026 Jel Kumar Agariya S/o Ramlal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tunga P.S. And Tehsil Lakhanpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P/s Rajpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 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. 25/2026 registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 112(2), and 3(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.02.2026 at about 3:00 P.M., the complainant, namely Nibal Lakra, withdrew an amount of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Rs.49,000/- from the District Cooperative Bank, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). It is alleged that thereafter, near Balaji Electronics, the present applicant along with a co-accused approached the complainant on a motorcycle and, on the pretext of dropping him at his residence, persuaded him to accompany them. According to the prosecution, the applicant and the co-accused took the complainant to Mahuvapara and dishonestly obtained the aforesaid amount of Rs.49,000/- from him by assuring that the same would be delivered to his son. It is further alleged that after receiving the said amount, both the accused persons fled from the spot on the motorcycle. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime came to be registered against the applicant, who was subsequently arrested during the course of investigation. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that there is no cogent or reliable material available on record to establish the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime and that he has never been involved in any such activity in the past. He further submits that the entire prosecution case rests upon vague, omnibus and general allegations, and no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant individually. It is also submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, the complainant voluntarily accompanied the accused persons and handed over the amount on the 3 assurance that it would be delivered to his son, and there is no allegation of use of force, weapon or criminal intimidation by the present applicant. He further argues that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., though the alleged incident is stated to have occurred at about 3:00 p.m. on 02.02.2026, the F.I.R. was registered only at 10:49 p.m. on the same day without any satisfactory explanation, which casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was initially lodged against unknown persons and the name of the present applicant did not find place therein; his implication at a subsequent stage during investigation raises serious doubt regarding his alleged involvement, particularly when no proper identification process or other reliable material has been brought on record to connect him with the offence. It is also pointed out that despite the allegation that the incident was committed by persons travelling on a motorcycle, the F.I.R. does not mention the registration number, make or any identifying particulars of the motorcycle, thereby creating further doubt regarding the prosecution version and the alleged identification of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 07.02.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant 4 is involved in a serious offence of cheating and sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation establishing his prima facie complicity in the crime. It is contended that the applicant, in furtherance of a common intention with the co- accused, deceitfully induced the complainant to accompany them and dishonestly obtained an amount of Rs.49,000/- from him on a false pretext, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. He counsel further submits that during investigation, an amount of Rs.20,000/- out of the cheated amount has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which lends substantial corroboration to the prosecution case and clearly indicates his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further argued that the evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie establishes the active participation of the applicant in the commission of the crime and that the defence grounds raised are matters to be considered during trial. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the recovery effected from the applicant, and the material available on record, it is prayed that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegations against the applicant are that the applicant, along with the co-accused, dishonestly induced the complainant and obtained Rs.49,000/- from him on a false pretext and an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been recovered from the 5 possession of the applicant, but it is to be noted that the applicant is in jail since 07.02.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Jel Kumar Agariya, involved in Crime No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 112(2), and 3(5) of of the 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 6 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. 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 Rahul Dewangan