1 CGHC010282562026 2026:CGHC:32022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6654 of 2026 • Anil Shankar Sahu S/o Dwarika Prasad Aged About 34 Years Village Lachhanpur, P.S. Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 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.378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar – Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the complainant, Gopal Prasad Dewangan, made a complaint on 01.06.2025 alleging that he, along with two others, had given a sum of Rs. 40,82,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand) to Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, Kusumrani Sahu, Rupesh Kumar Sahu, Gopal Prasad Sahu, and DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Tuleshwar Sahu for investment in share trading. It is further alleged that the aforesaid amount was taken by the above-mentioned persons on the pretext of returning double the amount within two years. It has also been alleged that the said amount was deposited, on diferent occasions, in the bank accounts of Gopal Prasad Sahu and Rupesh Kumar Sahu through PhonePe, NEFT, and other online transactions, and that a portion of the amount was paid in cash to Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, and Tuleshwar Sahu. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which clearly indicates that it is an afterthought. Moreover, the name of the present applicant does not find place in the FIR, and there is no allegation regarding any participation of the applicant in the alleged offence. He further submits that the name of the applicant has surfaced only in the memorandum statement of the co-accused, and solely on the basis of such statement and mere suspicion, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that the present applicant has five criminal antecedents, and in three cases, the applicant has already been granted regular bail by this Court. He further submits that the co-accused has already granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.2759/2026 vide order dated 24.03.2026 and also the similarly situated co-accused persons have already granted bail by this Court. Applicant has been languishing in jail since 08.07.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and further the fact that there appears to be an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which prima facie suggests that it may be an afterthought, moreover, the name of the present applicant does not ind mention in the FIR, and there are no specific allegations regarding his participation in the alleged offence. The implication of the applicant appears to be based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Furthermore, although the applicant has five criminal antecedents under the BNS, in three cases the applicant has already been granted regular bail by this Court. The applicant has been in custody since 08.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Anil Shankar Sahu, involved in Crime No.378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar – Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5), 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 4 effect that he/she 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 their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, 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/her 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 Deepti Jha