1 CGHC010257092026 2026:CGHC:35313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6208 of 2026 1 - Bhanuram Dahariya S/o Chatruram Dahariya Aged About 38 Years R/o Tarra, P.S. And Tehsil Patan, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramswaroop Rautela S/o Raju Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jagatpur, Naudar, Distt. Didouri, M.P. 3 - Ganesh Ram Gandharv S/o Thakur Ram Gandharv Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/08/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this ;rst bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 288/2026 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely Jitendra Sahu lodged a written report alleging that on 02.06.2026, the present applicants along with other co-accused persons induced him to purchase a gold-like metal ingot by representing it to be genuine gold and sold the same to him for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused persons assured the complainant that they possessed more quantity of genuine gold, which would be sold to him at a cheaper price. Subsequently, when the complainant got the said metal examined, it was found to be fake, whereupon he realised that the accused persons had, in furtherance of their common intention, cheated him by misrepresenting fake metal as genuine gold. Accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to be registered against the present applicants and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants have neither received any amount from the complainant directly or indirectly nor is there any material to connect them with the alleged transaction. He further submits that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicants and their implication is merely based on suspicion. It is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since 10.06.2026, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been ;led before the competent Court and the 3 applicants have no criminal antecedents and as the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicants, along with other co- accused persons, induced the complainant to purchase fake gold by representing it to be genuine and thereby cheated him. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been ;led before the competent Court. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the present applicants and that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 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, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the present applicants, the applicants are in judicial custody since 10.06.2026, the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has already been ;led before the competent Court, the conclusion of trial is likely to take some more time and also considering the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicants – Bhanuram Dahariya, Ganesh Ram Gandharv, involved in Crime No. 288/2026 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each and applicant – Ramswaroop Rautela be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties 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 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 suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses 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 5 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 deliberated or without suEcient 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. 9. OEce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal