1 CGHC010290212026 2026:CGHC:32581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6820 of 2026 Toman Das Sahu S/o Vishnu Das Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Hanuman Mandir, Bora Line, Purani Basti, Supela, P.S. Supela, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 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. 767/2026 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. As per the prosecution story, one P.P. Rao lodged a written complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that he had invested in share trading on the inducement of the present applicant, who had assured him of certain benefits on such investment. It is alleged that, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.30 18:39:16 +0530 2 acting upon such inducement, the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 18.12.2024. Thereafter, the complainant himself admitted in his written complaint that he had been receiving interest on his investment for a considerable period. It is further alleged in the written complaint that the applicant had issued a cheque towards the discharge of the said liability, which was subsequently dishonoured. Pursuant to the said written complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 767/2026 was registered against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant was arrested by the police of Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.), on 02.06.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 02.06.2026 despite being innocent. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, and no useful purpose would be be served by keeping him behind bars. He also submits that the applicant is not a hardened criminal and is deeply rooted in society. Therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding, tampering with the prosecution evidence, or influencing the witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years. Despite this, the applicant was arrested on 02.06.2026 in gross violation of the safeguards provided under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and in disregard of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & 3 Anr. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that non-compliance with the statutory safeguards governing arrest would entitle an accused to the benefit of bail. He further submits that as many as 30 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, which itself indicates that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody, and such continued detention would cause unnecessary mental and financial hardship to him. He further submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which one case is of a similar nature which is also listed today before this Court for hearing, while the other case is still pending. The explanations in respect thereof have already been furnished in Part D of the present bail application. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.06.2026, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays that the present applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is argued that the present applicant induced the complainant to invest a substantial amount in share trading on the assurance of assured returns and thereafter failed to return the invested amount. It is also submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, including one of a similar nature, which indicates his propensity to commit such offences. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during the course of investigation, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, it appears that the dispute between the parties has arisen out of financial/commercial transactions. Moreover, the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, out of which one case is of a similar nature which is also listed today before this Court for hearing, while the other case is also pending. The explanations in respect thereof have already been furnished in Part D of the present bail application. Further, considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.06.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicant – Toman Das Sahu, involved in Crime No. 767/2026 registered at Police Station - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek