1 2026:CGHC:25204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5357 of 2026 Jaipal Singh Markam S/o Gusai Markam Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Aoundhi, P.S. And Tehsil Aoundhi, Distt. Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Aoundhi, Distt. Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station Aoundhi, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 7931 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 11.11.2025 on merits. Hence, this second bail application. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 05.03.2025, an FIR was lodged by the complainant stating that he works in the post of Senior Manager at Indian Bank Branch - Aoudhi. It has been alleged in the complaint that the applicant was retired from the post of CSA (Cashier) on 29.06.2024 from the said bank and during his work tenure the applicant has fraudulently transferred Rs. 49,24,563/- from the bank accounts of different customers of the bank. Therefore, FIR has been lodged against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application preferred by the applicant, bearing MCRC No. 7931 of 2025, was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025. It is further submitted that the present second bail application has been filed on the basis of a subsequent change in circumstances that out of the total 59 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, the statements of 32 witnesses have already been recorded before the trial Court. It is contended that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 26.05.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the trial is progressing at a slow pace and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 and there is no substantial change in the circumstances 3 warranting reconsideration of the applicant's case. It is submitted that merely because some prosecution witnesses have been examined during the course of trial cannot be treated as a fresh ground for grant of bail, particularly when the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is further submitted that no new or cogent ground has been raised by the applicant in the present second bail application so as to take a view different from that taken earlier by this Court. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the absence of any significant change in circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the present application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that no such subsequent change in circumstances has occurred after rejection of the applicant's earlier bail application on merits so as to justify reconsideration of the matter. Merely because out of 59 prosecution witnesses, 32 witnesses have been examined during trial, the same cannot be construed as a substantial change in circumstances warranting grant of bail. No other good ground of significance has been raised by learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to interfere at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Jaipal Singh Markam, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station Aoundhi, District- Mohla- 4 Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal