1 CGHC010197172026 2026:CGHC:30048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4640 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramanand Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sivani Kala Bharti Typing, Jhalap Chowk, Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri VA Goverdhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA. 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 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.186/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318 (4) & 3 (5) of the BNS. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.16 18:46:29 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that co-accused Kumar Ram Thakur and his wife Sohadra Bai Thakur have induced the complainant to give money in lieu of job to his son Loknath Chouhan in Mantralaya. Thereafter the complainant gave Rs.4 lakhs cash to co-accused Kumar Ram Thakur. According to the complainant, the relatives of the complainant have also given an amount of Rs.22,70,000/- to Kumar Ram Thakur and co-accused Kumar Ram Thakur gave appointment letters to them and subsequently, they came to know that they have been cheated. Thereafter the FIR was registered against the applicant. Hence the bail application. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. As per the FIR, there is no allegation against the applicant. Neither the applicant induced the complainant and his relatives to give money in lieu of providing job nor has he taken any amount from them. The said appointment letter has also been given by co-accused Kumar Ram Thakur to the complainant. There is inordinate delay of about 1 year in lodging the FIR. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 6.4.2026. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents and the charge 3 sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 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, and the fact that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, there is inordinate delay of about 1 year in lodging the FIR, the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, the applicant is in jail since 6.4.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Mukesh Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No.186/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318 (4) & 3 (5) of the BNS, 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 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, 4 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 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 applicants are 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 them 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve