1 2026:CGHC:6578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1278 of 2026 1. Smt. Radhika Bais W/o Manvendra Singh Bais Aged About 43 Years Presently Resided At Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Address - R/o 189, Scheme 14, Near Ghadi Chowk, Vijay Nagar P.S. Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.) Permanent Address 31/2 Bindari, Rohna Chhindwada (M.P.) 2. Manvendra Singh Bais S/o Late Onkar Singh Bais Aged About 48 Years Presently Resided At Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Address - R/o 189, Scheme 14, Near Ghadi Chowk, Vijay Nagar P.S. Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.) Permanent Address 31/2 Bindari, Rohna Chhindwada (M.P.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikarapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This is the >rst bail application >led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.07 12:07:41 +0530 2 508/2024 registered at Police Station Tikarapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the o@ence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant has alleged that the present applicants received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) from him in exchange for securing a government job in the Health Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). In the FIR lodged by the complainant, it was further revealed that the present applicants had also taken money from other persons for securing them government jobs. On the basis of these allegations, the police registered the FIR, arrested the applicants, and subsequently >led a charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police in a fabricated and plotted case. He submits that the applicants had taken a loan from the complainant at an interest rate of 5% and had also provided a security cheque to him. When the applicants failed to repay the loan amount, the complainant lodged the present FIR against him on baseless allegations. He further submits that both parties moved an application before the learned trial Court under Section 359 of the BNSS for compounding of o@ences, in which the statements of the witnesses were recorded; however, the learned Trial Court rejected the compromise application. He submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 26.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been >led before the competent Court. She submits that the applicants allegedly received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the 3 complainant on the pretext of securing a government job in the Health Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.), and that the FIR further reveals similar allegations of taking money from other persons on the same pretext. Therefore, considering the seriousness of the case, the applicant is not entitled to regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that applicants allegedly received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of securing a government job in the Health Department, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.), and that the FIR further reveals similar allegations of taking money from other persons on the same pretext. Moreover, considering the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been >led before the competent court, and further the applicants have been in custody since 26.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the Applicants – Smt. Radhika Bais and Manvendra Singh Bais, involved in Crime No. 508/2024 registered at Police Station Tikarapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the o@ence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall >le an undertaking to the e@ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates >xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open 4 for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date >xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suFcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date >xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates >xed 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 applicants are deliberate or without suFcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OFce is directed to send a certi>ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. 9. However, it will be open for the prosecuting agency to initiate prosecution against the complainant of the present case, who claims to have been cheated by the applicants herein, as the complainant’s conduct in parting with money for obtaining employment through illegal means amounts to 5 giving a bribe, and whose changed stand following the compromise between the parties shows that the complainant is equally responsible for the o@ence in question. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek