1 CGHC010171222026 2026:CGHC:29995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4070 of 2026 Banshidhar Kashyap S/o Shri Teduram Kashyap Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village - Mundapal Schoolpara, Thana - Baster, Distt.- Baster At Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Baster, Distt.- Baster At Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 115/2025 registered at Police Station : Baster, District – Baster at Jadgalpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.11.2025, the complainant, Balram Maurya, lodged a written report at Police Station Bastar alleging that he is an agriculturist and had cultivated a maize crop in his ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.16 10:58:57 +0530 2 agricultural field. It is alleged that, after harvesting the crop, the complainant, along with other villagers, acting upon the inducement and assurance of the present applicant, sold their maize crop worth approximately Rs. 11,85,463/- to co-accused Virendra Pandi on 10.06.2025. It is further alleged that, after taking delivery of the maize crop, the co-accused failed to pay the sale consideration to the complainant and the other villagers. On the basis of the said written report, the police registered an FIR against the applicant and the co- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant himself is an agriculturist and had also sold his maize crop to the co-accused. He, too, has not received the sale consideration for the same. Therefore, the applicant is himself a victim of the alleged non-payment and not a beneficiary of the alleged transaction. He submits that the applicant had no role in arranging or procuring the sale of the maize crop belonging to the complainant or the other villagers. He merely informed them that he was selling his own maize crop to the same trader, and the complainant and the other villagers independently entered into the transaction of their own free will. He also submits that the allegation that the applicant acted as a clerk or agent of the trader is false, baseless, and malicious. The same has been made only to create criminal liability against the applicant without any supporting material or evidence. He submits that even according to the prosecution case, the transaction of sale took place on 10.06.2025, whereas the complaint was lodged after a delay of about five months, i.e., on 07.11.2025. The unexplained delay casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. 3 Furthermore, the dispute, at best, arises out of a commercial or monetary transaction relating to the non-payment of the sale consideration, which is predominantly civil in nature and has been wrongly given a criminal colour. He further submits that the co-accused addressed a letter dated 19.08.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Bastar, seeking time to make payment to the farmers for the maize purchased from them. In the said letter, the co-accused also explained the circumstances that led to the delay in making payment to the complainant and the other farmers. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant has been in jail since 29.03.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the present case, the charge- sheet has not submitted before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 29.03.2026, trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Banshidhar Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 115/2025 registered at Police Station : Baster, District – Baster at Jadgalpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya 4 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 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 5 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 Abhishek