1 CGHC010214762026 2026:CGHC:28655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5021 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o- Lazman Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Radhapur Post - Pratappur P. S. - Sitapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Gandhinagar District - Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Objector : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 197/2026 registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of BNS (420 of IPC). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Avinash Kumar, lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.) on 10.04.2026, alleging that the applicant, while working at Kalyan Jewellers, induced him to invest under the purported 'Kalyan Dhanlakshmi' Scheme by representing that the invested amount would be converted into gold and would yield assured returns. Acting upon such representation, the complainant allegedly invested a total sum of Rs. 7,59,500/- on different occasions. It is alleged that although the complainant initially received certain returns, the payments were subsequently discontinued. Upon making enquiries at the showroom and not receiving a satisfactory response, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. Thereafter the matter was registered against the applicant for offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS [420 of IPC]. 3. Learneld counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing monetary dispute with the complainant. It is contended that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had already been initiated prior to the registration of the present F.I.R., which has been lodged after an unexplained delay. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. The 3 applicant has remained in jail since 28.04.2026, charge-sheet has been filed in this case and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of 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 already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, by making false representations, induced the complainant to invest a substantial amount under the purported scheme and thereby committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the 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, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 28.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Rajesh Kumar Tiwari involved in Crime No.- 197/2026 registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318 (4) of 4 BNS [420 of IPC] 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 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 his 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 5 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Ruchi