1 2026:CGHC:25428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5459 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Jangde Son Of Domar Singh Jangde, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Baktara, Near Gurunanak Petrol Pump, Mandir Hasoud, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 77/2024, registered at Police Station : Rudri District Dhamtari (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.23 11:27:02 +0530 2 merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 31.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7643 of 2025. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Smt. Sarla Netam reported to the Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari that Sarita Kariyam, Chandrahas Kariyam (both R/o Village Naragaon, District Balod) along with Kholbahara Nishad of Village Katnai, District Janjgir Champa by luring rural women with the promise of commission to make large investments, got groups formed, made them take easy Joans (as members of group) from various banks one by Vone, kept all the money with themselves and did not repay the installments as committed com initially and defrauded the complainant and her Women Group Members of a total cash amount of Rs. 26,59,000/-, a Crime NO. 77/2024 under Section 318(4), 3(5) of the BNS was registered against applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any of the offences alleged against him. It is contended that the applicant neither participated in nor derived any benefit from the alleged transaction relating to the sanction or withdrawal of loan amounts in the name of women's self-help groups. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which has no independent corroboration. It is further submitted that the applicant's name does not find mention in the FIR and no witness has implicated him during the course of investigation. Even after framing of charges, prosecution witnesses PW-1 (Sarla) and PW-2 (Bhagbati) have been 3 examined before the trial Court and have not identified the present applicant. It is also argued that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant and no documentary evidence has been collected by the prosecution to establish his involvement in the alleged cheating or withdrawal of loan amounts. According to the learned counsel, the principal role, if any, has been attributed to co-accused Kholbahara Nishad, whereas the applicant has been implicated merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that no prima facie case under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel further points out that co-accused Sarita Kariyam has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 04.05.2026 in Crime No. 77/2024. The applicant, aged about 35 years, has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2025, the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and therefore there is no likelihood of his interfering with the investigation or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is the sole earning member of his family and his prolonged incarceration has caused severe financial hardship to his dependents. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed, only 2 out of 113 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, and the applicant has remained in custody since 04.06.2025, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Rakesh Kumar Jangde, involved in Crime No. 77/2024, registered at Police Station : Rudri District Dhamtari (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, 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. 9. 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 Vaibhav