1 2026:CGHC:957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 26 of 2026 Tilak Yadav S/o Ashwani Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Tavera, Thana- Ranchirai, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) At Present R/o Padmanabhpur, Ward No. 49, Q. No. 06, Thana- Padmanabhpur, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station- Sihava, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station : Sihava, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 14.01.2025, the complainant, namely Sahilendra Chanchal, lodged a written report RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that during the period from 21.09.2022 to 30.12.2024, the present applicant, along with other accused persons, had assured him of providing a government job to his son and facilitating his transfer from one place to another, and on such assurance, received an amount of Rs.6.45 lakhs. It is alleged that despite receiving the said amount, the accused persons neither ful>lled the promise nor returned the money. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case and arrested the present applicant for the alleged commission of the o:ence. 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. It is submitted that the alleged forged documents were prepared by the complainant himself, and the applicant has been wrongly implicated, particularly when the complainant is already involved in criminal cases, including o:ences under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to connect the applicant with the alleged o:ence, and no evidence has been recorded by the prosecution till date. It is also pointed out that no speci>c role has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR. He further submits that the present applicant has one criminal case in which he has already been acquitted, the charge-sheet has been >led before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 15.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant, along with other accused persons, induced the complainant on false assurances of providing a government job, and on such inducement, received a substantial amount of Rs.6.45 lakhs, which has neither been returned nor accounted for. It is submitted that the allegations disclose a systematic act of cheating, the role of the applicant is clearly reAected from the material collected during investigation, and the o:ence involves serious >nancial fraud. Considering the gravity of the o:ence and the manner in which the complainant was deceived, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this 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, though the present applicant, along with other accused persons, induced the complainant on false assurances of providing a government job, and on such inducement, received a substantial amount of Rs.6.45 lakhs, which has neither been returned nor accounted for, but the charge-sheet has been >led, the applicant is in jail since 15.06.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the opinion that continued detention of the applicant is not warranted. It is also relevant to note that the allegations arise out of a transaction wherein the complainant himself claims to have paid money for securing a government job, which, prima facie, also reAects an illegal act on his part, and the matter essentially involves disputed questions of fact to be 4 adjudicated during trial. Considering the nature of allegations, period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Tilak Yadav, involved in Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station : Sihava, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall >le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates >xed 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 >xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suCcient 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 >xed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 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 >xed 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 suCcient 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. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case also who claims to have been cheated by the applicant herein, as the conduct of the complainant amounts to give bribe for obtaining employment through illegal mode. 9. OCce is directed to provide a certi>ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan