2 CGHC010228652026 2026:CGHC:29146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5548 of 2026 1 - Durgesh Sharma @ Sanni Son Of Manharan Prasad Sharma Aged About 30 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Verma In The Annexure A-1), Resident Of Village Tengabhatha, Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh … Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiwa District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.M. Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 No. 127/2026 registered at Police Station- P.S. Dharsiwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant submitted a written complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that the applicant had fraudulently and unauthorisedly withdrawn an amount of Rs. 15.70 lakhs from the bank accounts of the complainant and his wife without their knowledge or consent. Acting upon the said written complaint, the police registered the present crime against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about three years, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.03.2026. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have defrauded as many as ten victims and 2 dishonestly obtained an amount of approximately Rs. 36 lakhs from them. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay of about three years, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 07.03.2026, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that, without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Durgesh Sharma @ Sanni involved in Crime No.- 127/2026 registered at Police Station- P.S. Dharsiwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 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 2 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 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 2 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. 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. 9. 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