1 CGHC010224882026 2026:CGHC:31246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5381 of 2026 Rajendra Kumar Tamrakar S/o Late Keduram Tamrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Tamerpara Ward No.30 Durg (C.G.) (Current Address- Jawahar Nagar, Ward No.18, Next To Manmohan Sharma Police Station Mohan Nagar Distric- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 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. 224/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Deepak Jain lodged a written report alleging that the present applicant, along RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 with other co-accused persons, induced him and several other investors to invest substantial amounts of money in a purported Forex Trading scheme by assuring them of high and attractive returns. It is alleged that, acting upon such representations, the complainant and other persons invested their money, however, neither the promised returns were paid nor were the invested amounts refunded. Upon realizing that they had been deceived, the complainant approached the police, whereupon FIR was registered on 02.05.2026 in connection with the incident alleged to have commenced on 04.05.2024. During the course of investigation, the present applicant and other co-accused persons were implicated for having allegedly cheated the investors by dishonestly inducing them to part with their money under the guise of Forex Trading, and thereafter, the applicant came to be arrested. 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 and has not committed any act constituting the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant himself has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant and, in this regard, had moved an application supported by an affidavit before the Court below during the hearing of the bail application. A copy of the said no-objection application along with the affidavit has been filed as Annexure A-3. He further submits that an Ekrarnama/settlement was also executed between the wife of the applicant and the complainant regarding the return of the amount in question, which demonstrates the bona fides 3 of the applicant’s side. He further submits that co-accused persons, namely, Sushil Kumar and Bhupendra Sahu, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRCA Nos. 824/2026 and 848/2026 vide common order dated 09.07.2026. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 20.05.2026, and the trial is likely to take some 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 persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused and the complainant himself has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant and, in this regard, had moved an application supported by an affidavit before the Court below during the hearing of the bail application and an Ekrarnama/ settlement was also executed between the wife of the applicant and the complainant regarding the return of the amount in question. He also submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of cheating wherein the complainant and several other persons were allegedly induced to invest money in the name of Forex Trading on the false assurance of earning high returns. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 4 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 offence, the fact that though the allegations are that present applicant and other co-accused persons were allegedly cheated the investors by dishonestly inducing them to part with their money under the guise of Forex Trading, but also considering the fact that the complainant has filed a no-objection application supported by an affidavit expressing no objection to the grant of bail, and an Ekrarnama/settlement has also been executed regarding the return of the amount in question and further the co- accused persons, namely, Sushil Kumar and Bhupendra Sahu, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 824/2026 and 848/2026 vide common order dated 09.07.2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the charge-sheet has already been filed, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 20.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered 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 – Rajendra Kumar Tamrakar, involved in Crime No. 224/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing 5 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 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 6 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