1 2026:CGHC:25469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 263 of 2026 1 - Padam Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Manak Chand Jain Aged About 61 Years Authorized Signatory And Share Holder Of Earth Stahi Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 5b, Mohini, Marin Jayshree Vihar, Pandri, Tarai, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Sho, Police Station- Telibandha, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Anil Nair S/o Krishna Nair Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. C-27, Romanesque Villa, Labhandi, P.S. Telibandha, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Anand Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Arjit Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. This petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.06.29 13:54:55 +0530 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.8992 of 2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lodged a report against respondent No.2 upon which Crime No. 385/2022 was registered at Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that respondent No.2 was arrested and was under judicial custody. He moved an application for grant of bail, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.2.2023 and while allowing the application for bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that he tried to lodged of FIR. He has deposited Rs.30,00,000 and he is ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount. 3. In light of the above submissions, this Court allowed the application and bail was granted to respondent No.2. He submits that despite of specific observation by this Court, respondent No.2 has not complied with the order and has not paid the entire amount, i.e., Rs.76,16,595. Thus, the bail granted to respondent No.2 may be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that substantial amount of money has already been refunded to the complainant and there is a dispute with regard to amount of money to be paid to the complainant, however, within a period of 60 days, 3 the admitted amount would be paid to the complainant. 5. Thus, taking into consideration the submission made hereinabove, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. However, it is observed that respondent No.2 would adhere to the observation made in the order dated 17.2.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8992 of 2022 and would make all endeavour to pay back the amount within a period of 60 days. Liberty is reserved in favour of the complainant to move an application for cancellation of bail if the order is not complied with. 6. It was expected that respondent No.2 would abide by his submission made before this Court. It appears that he is not abiding the same. 7. The Cr.M.P. is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal