1 CGHC010260362026 2026:CGHC:29322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6212 of 2026 Varun Pratap Singh S/o- Ajay Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o- Malviya Nagar, Shanti Niketan Apartments, P.S. Mohan Nagar District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Pulgaon, Chowki – Jeora Sirsa, District – Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Palash Jha and Devershi Thakur, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 524/2026, registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the FIR was lodged against the applicant by three complainants/consumers namely Komal Kumar Lautre, Anand Ram Sonkar and Suryakant Sahu, alleging that he applicant had cheated them for Rs. 60,91,000/- and failed to deliver the Harvestor. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there are two RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which one is of the year 2019 which has been old and stale, and one is also lodged against the applicant on the basis of the present crime. It is contended that in the FIR itself, it is mentioned that applicant’s company has already initiated the refund and had already returned Rs. 14,00,000/- out of Rs. 27,20,000/- to the complainant Anand Ram Sonkar, Rs. 2,50,000/- to complainant Komal Kumar Lautre, and Rs. 3,00,000/- to complainant Suryakant Sahu. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 16.06.2026 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are two criminal antecedents of the applicant, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there are two criminal antecedents of the applicant out of which one is of the year 2019 which has been old and stale, and one is also lodged against the applicant on the basis of the present crime, furthermore, in the FIR itself, it is mentioned that applicant’s company has already initiated the refund and had already returned Rs. 14,00,000/- out of Rs. 27,20,000/- to the complainant Anand Ram 3 Sonkar, Rs. 2,50,000/- to complainant Komal Kumar Lautre, and Rs. 3,00,000/- to complainant Suryakant Sahu, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant – Varun Pratap Singh, involved in Crime No. 524/2026, registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 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 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. 4 (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 Rajshekhar