1 CGHC010269142026 2026:CGHC:30942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6508 of 2026 Toshan Singh Rajput S/o Dilip Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Semariya, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 116/2024 registered at Police Station- Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ramayan Singh Rajput, lodged a report alleging that the present applicant, along with the co-accused persons, induced him to part with a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the pretext of securing a government job for his brother, Basant Singh Rajput, on the post of Sub-Inspector. It is alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amount, neither was the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 promised job provided nor was the money returned. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Lormi registered Crime No. 116/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and co-accused persons. The applicant was subsequently arrested in connection with the said crime. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged vacancy pertained to the year 2018, whereas the complainant claims to have paid the alleged amount during the period from 2021 to 2023, but the FIR came to be lodged only in the year 2024 after an unexplained delay of more than two years, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. It is contended that the applicant has neither obtained nor received any amount from the complainant on the pretext of securing a government job for the complainant’s brother. He also submits that the second application for anticipatory bail preferred by the present applicant along with co-accused Diwakar Singh Rajput was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC(A) No. 406 of 2025 vide order dated 25.03.2025. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions challenging the said order. However, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the present applicant, being SLP (Crl.) No. 4454 of 2026, was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.07.2026 in view of the fact that the applicant had already been arrested. It is submitted that the co-accused Diwakar Singh Rajput, on the other hand, 3 preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 6233 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 11.08.2025, and he was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. On the strength of the said order, learned counsel submits that the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, as the allegations against him are similar to those levelled against the said co-accused. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature of allegations and the material available on record, and further the fact that the second anticipatory bail application preferred by the present applicant along with co- accused Diwakar Singh Rajput was dismissed by this Court in MCRCA No. 406 of 2025 vide order dated 25.03.2025. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions challenging the said order. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the present applicant, 4 being SLP (Crl.) No. 4454 of 2026, came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 06.07.2026 on account of the fact that the applicant had already been arrested. However, the co-accused Diwakar Singh Rajput, against whom similar allegations have been levelled, was granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 6233 of 2025. This Court further takes into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 06.07.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Toshan Singh Rajput, involved in Crime No. 116/2024 registered at Police Station- Lormi, District - Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 5 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 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 Rahul Dewangan