1 2026:CGHC:26390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5667 of 2026 Balbir Singh S/o Late Jagjeet Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. For Objector(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 34 of the IPC. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Jatin Choudhary S/o Late Jayant Choudhary, lodged an FIR on 11.04.2025 against the present applicant and other co-accused in respect of transactions allegedly taking place between 10.11.2022 and 25.05.2024. It is alleged that the applicant, along with his mother Smt. Sharanjeet Kaur, an LIC agent, induced the complainant and other persons to invest money in LIC policies by assuring them of double returns and high profits. The prosecution further alleges that forged LIC policy documents were prepared, investors were persuaded to invest money in business on the assurance of attractive returns, and the amounts collected were neither deposited in the LIC policies nor utilized for the promised purpose. Instead, the applicant and the co-accused allegedly misappropriated and siphoned off the invested amount, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and other investors to the tune of Rs. 45,53,780/-. On these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that there is no material on record to establish that the present applicant received any money in lieu of the alleged LIC policies. On the contrary, the premium amounts were duly deposited, and the investors received SMS confirmations acknowledging the payment of the premium. It is 3 only when the complainants did not receive the returns as allegedly expected by them that they lodged the present false and frivolous FIR against the applicant. The allegations made by the complainants are purely oral in nature and are not supported by any credible documentary evidence to substantiate the commission of the alleged offences. He later submits that there was never any dishonest or wrongful intention on the part of the applicant to cheat or defraud any person. Furthermore, no alleged forged premium payment slip or any forged document has been seized during the course of investigation, nor is there any evidence to show that the applicant forged or fabricated any document. In the absence of any such material evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicant are not made out. Lastly, submits that co-accused, Devendra Sen has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2427 of 2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2025, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, one is of the year 2025 under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS and another is of the year 2026 under Section 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 4 5. Leaned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons prepared forged LIC policy documents and induced the complainants to invest money by assuring them of double returns and high profits. It is alleged that the amounts collected from the complainants were not deposited with LIC, fake premium receipts were issued, and the money was misappropriated. The charge- sheet further alleges that the amounts paid by the complainants were credited into the bank account of the present applicant, thereby indicating his involvement in the alleged cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, one is of the year 2025 under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS and another is of the year 2026 under Section 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, and the fact that though the applicant allegedly in collusion with other co-accused persons induced the complainants to invest money in LIC policies by promising double returns, prepared forged LIC documents and fake premium receipts, failed to deposit the collected amount with LIC, misappropriated the investors' money, and the charge-sheet 5 alleges that the amount was credited into the applicant's bank account, but considering the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.11.2025 and co-accused, Devendra Sen has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2427 of 2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the said co-accused, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are two in number, one is of the year 2025 under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS and another is of the year 2026 under Section 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, further the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant-Balbir Singh, involved in Crime No. 152/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 6 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. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil