1 CGHC010202062026 2026:CGHC:29004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4735 of 2026 Pawan Kumar Kurre S/o Late Dujram Kurre Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Damapur Police Station Pandariya District Kabirdham C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Staion Pandariya District Kabirdhan C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate. 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 175/2025 registered at Police Station- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Rajesh Kumar Dhurve, lodged a written complaint alleging that in the month of January, 2025, the present applicant approached him and KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 represented that he could secure a Government Nurse's job for the complainant's wife, Santoshi Dhurve. Believing the assurance given by the applicant, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.76,500/- on different dates through PhonePe and a Choice Centre to the mobile number and QR Code provided by the applicant. It is further alleged that, on the applicant's repeated demand for an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the complainant borrowed money from his relatives and on 12.03.2025, paid the said amount in cash to the applicant at Pandatarai Petrol Pump, Pandariya-Kawardha. Thus, it is alleged that the applicant dishonestly obtained a total amount of Rs.2,76,500/- from the complainant on the false promise of securing a Government job for his wife. During the course of investigation, it further surfaced that the applicant had allegedly introduced himself as Dr. Piyush Netam, a Doctor posted in the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Raipur, and on the pretext of securing appointments as Mitanin, Nurse and other posts in the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, had similarly collected different amounts from several other persons, namely Chhote Singh Kasre, Santosh Kumar Maravi, Gayatri Maravi, Vivek Marko, Shyam Bai and Rajkumari Markam. It is alleged that the applicant dishonestly obtained an aggregate amount of Rs.4,56,665/- from the complainant and the other victims by inducing them with false promises of Government employment. Accordingly, aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the dispute, if any, arises out of monetary transactions and is essentially civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.08.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 13.10.2025. It is submitted that charges have also been framed by the trial Court on 02.01.2026, however, despite the matter having been fixed for prosecution evidence on several occasions thereafter, not a single prosecution witness has been examined and no delay is attributable to the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is the sole earning member of his family and his continued incarceration is causing severe hardship to his dependents and he had only only criminal antecedent, which has already been disposed of as the same has been explained in the bail application of para No.4(a). Therefore, considering the prolonged period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet and the delay in conclusion of the trial, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant, by falsely representing himself to be a Doctor posted in a Government Ayurvedic Hospital, dishonestly induced the complainant and several other persons to part with substantial amounts of money on the false promise of securing Government employment. He further submits that during investigation it has been found that the 4 applicant cheated multiple victims and collected an amount of Rs.4,56,665/- by adopting the same modus operandi. He submits that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation and the criminal antecedent of the applicant as the same has been explained, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 17.08.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, charges have also been framed on 02.01.2026 and despite the matter being fixed for prosecution evidence on several occasions, no prosecution witness has yet been examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, coupled with the fact that the applicant had only one criminal antecedent, which have already been disposed of as the same has already been explained in the bail application of para No.4(a) and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Pawan Kumar Kurre, involved in Crime No. 175/2025 registered at Police Station- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a 5 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. (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 6 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal