1 CGHC010239772026 2026:CGHC:30539-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1554 of 2026 Ravi Jatwar S/o Shri Arun Kumar Jatwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Amaldiha, Police Station Bilaigarh, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P. S. - Bilaigarh, Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.21 12:11:23 +0530 2 2. The appellant has preferred the present second bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 arising out of Crime No. 455/2023 registered at Police Station- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), seeking enlargement on bail in connection with the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 489(d), 506 and 34 of the IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was registered on 27.11.2023 alleging that the applicant/appellant, along with three co-accused persons, was involved in cheating innocent persons by inducing them to exchange genuine currency notes for purported high-value currency notes. It is alleged that the accused represented the fake notes to be genuine and assured the victims that the same could be circulated without any difficulty. The prosecution further alleges that, by employing sleight of hand (hand tricks), the accused substituted genuine currency with blank paper sheets resembling currency notes, thereby dishonestly deceiving the complainant and others and causing wrongful loss to them. Based on these allegations, the present crime was registered against the applicant/appellant and investigation was set in motion. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his first bail application seeking bail, arising out of the same crime, was dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2026 in CRA No. 2/2026. It is submitted that the said order has attained finality and is being relied upon for the purposes of the present proceedings. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present is the second bail application and the same has been preferred on account of subsequent developments which have taken place after rejection of the first bail application. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 420, 489-D, 506 and 34 of the IPC is made out against the appellant inasmuch as no counterfeit currency, incriminating article or any other suspicious material has been recovered or seized from his possession. It is also contended that no transaction whatsoever was undertaken by the appellant with the complainant. 6. Learned counsel further submits that during the course of trial, the complainant has already been examined on 07.04.2026 and his deposition before the trial Court materially differs from the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., thereby substantially weakening the prosecution case against the appellant. It is also submitted that two independent prosecution witnesses have been examined and their depositions are also contrary to their respective police statements, creating serious doubts regarding the prosecution version. It is further argued that all the three co-accused persons have already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.02.2024 passed in MCRC No.612/2024 and dated 10.04.2024 passed in MCRC No.2218/2024 and, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be 4 released on bail on the ground of parity. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has remained in judicial custody since 23.11.2025, the trial is likely to take further time to conclude, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the organised nature of the crime, the conduct of the appellant in absconding, and the fact that the trial is in progress, no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned bail rejection order. 9. The learned Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, rejected the appellant’s second application for regular bail primarily on the ground that the appellant’s memorandum statement allegedly disclosed his involvement in the preparation and circulation of counterfeit currency in association with the co-accused. The Court further took note of the rejection of the appellant’s earlier anticipatory and regular bail applications by both the Trial Court and this Court, observed that the trial was still at the stage of prosecution evidence with several material witnesses, including 5 the Investigating Officer, yet to be examined, and consequently held that no case for grant of regular bail was made out. 10.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and finding recorded by learned Special Judge, (NIA) Bilaspur while rejecting the bail application of the appellant, moreover, the first bail of the appellant was dismissed on merits and no new ground has been raised in this second appeal for grant of bail and trial is already in progress as out of 15 witnesses, 3 have already been examined, hence we do not find any good ground or change in circumstances to entertain this second appeal for grant of bail to the appellant. 11. Accordingly, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order and shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet