1 2026:CGHC:25499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3511 of 2026 Yash Rajesh Shah S/o Rajesh Shah Aged About 28 Years R/o Flat No. 703, Plot No. 40, Shilpkala Co-Housing Society, Goradiya Nagar, In Front of Nilkanth, Tower Police Quarters, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 34/2026 registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present bail application arises out of FIR No. 34 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026 registered at Police Station Civil ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.23 10:37:29 +0530 2 Lines, Raipur. The said FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant, one Shri Samarth Bardia, who, inter alia, alleged that the applicant had approached him and his brother-in-law, Shri Mukul Chopra, for investment in gold mines in Tanzania. Based on the said proposal, it is alleged that the complainant and his brother-in-law transferred a total sum of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- in different instalments from their accounts maintained with IndusInd Bank, G.E. Road, Raipur, to the applicant’s account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. 3. Mr. Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Mr. Paranjpe submits the FIR has been maliciously registered in a casual manner, thereby setting the criminal law into motion despite there being an absolute lack of any proximate or cogent material to show the commission of any offence by the applicant. The dispute is purely contractual in nature, and the resort to criminal law is mala fide and actuated by the ulterior motive of the complainant to short- circuit ordinary civil proceedings by pressurizing the applicant to pay amounts to him. In fact, the complainant has been successful in his design by getting the bank accounts of the applicant frozen, and it has also come to the knowledge of the applicant that the complainant has succeeded in getting an amount of Rs. 24,00,000/- recovered therefrom. It is further argued that the applicant has never projected himself to be the owner of any mine in Tanzania. In fact, in the FIR, the complainant has made a contrary statement to the effect that the applicant had introduced a local resident of Tanzania, as only local residents are entitled to own mines in Tanzania. Furthermore, the complainant’s multiple visits to Tanzania, his visits to the mines and the formation of the 3 company are sufficient to establish that he had entered into the business venture with full knowledge and with his eyes wide open, and that there was no concealment of any fact by the applicant. In the absence of any criminality or overt acts on the part of the applicant, the continuation of his pre-trial custody would amount to a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that as per the FIR, the alleged date of the incident is 07.03.2024, whereas the FIR came to be registered much later on 21.01.2026. There is an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly two years in the registration of the FIR. The FIR is completely silent regarding the reason for such abnormal delay. It is a settled principle of law that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates serious doubt about the genuineness and credibility of the allegations and indicates that the complaint is an afterthought, filed with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. The unexplained delay itself demonstrates that the dispute is not criminal in nature and that the present FIR has been lodged only to give a criminal colour to a civil and business dispute and to pressurize the applicant. The complainant himself had visited Tanzania with the applicant on various occasions and had physically verified all aspects of the business after conducting his own due diligence. Solely because the complainant no longer wishes to continue with the project, he has got the present FIR registered only with a view to recover his invested amount. It is submitted that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 14.02.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and also 4 endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 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, and further considering the fact that the alleged incident took place on 07.03.2024, whereas the FIR came to be registered much later, on 21.01.2026, there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly two years in the registration of the FIR. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 14.02.2026. As the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Yash Rajesh Shah, involved in Crime No. 34/2026 registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 423, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount 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 5 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek