1 CGHC010200062026 2026:CGHC:29057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4838 of 2026 Pramod Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Mochandas Vaishnav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Jawahar Nagar, Akaltara, Tahsil And Thana- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Akaltara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 33/2026 registered at Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.01.2026, complainant Mahendra Kumar Kashyap lodged a report at Police Station Akaltara alleging that the present applicant induced him to invest in real estate and share market schemes by assuring a monthly return of 5% and, acting upon such representation, the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to the applicant, who issued a cheque of the like amount and executed an agreement acknowledging receipt of the money. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the applicant had allegedly obtained Rs.5,00,000/- each from Kaushal Prasad Kashyap and Hiralal Kashyap on the same pretext. It is further alleged that during investigation, the applicant disclosed in his memorandum statement that he was working with co-accused Dinesh Kumar Patel and had handed over the amounts collected from various investors to him. The prosecution further alleges that the accused persons similarly collected substantial amounts from several other persons on the false promise of investment in real estate and share market but failed to return the money. On the basis of the complaint, the offence was registered, investigation was undertaken, and the applicant was arrested, while co-accused Dinesh Kumar Patel is stated to be absconding. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against him. It is contended that the dispute arises out of monetary transactions of a predominantly civil nature, the 3 allegations are based on documentary evidence, there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicant had issued cheques, negating any dishonest intention from the inception. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents registered and is in jail since 18.01.2026 and though the charge- sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant allegedly induced the complainant and other investors to invest money in real estate and share market schemes on the false promise of assured monthly returns, collected the investment amounts, and failed to return the money. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 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 allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the applicant allegedly induced the complainant and other investors to invest money in real estate and share market schemes on the false promise of assured monthly returns, collected the investment amounts, and failed to return the money, but considering the fact that the applicant has 4 no previous criminal antecedents and is in jail since 18.01.2026, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. 7. Let applicant, Pramod Kumar Vaishnav, involved in Crime No. 33/2026 registered at Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B 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 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate 5 proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil