1 CGHC010255642026 2026:CGHC:34802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6087 of 2026 Varun Sahu S/o Yadram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Bhurka, Police Station - Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 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. 135/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. The case of prosecution in short is that the complaint made by the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.07 15:52:14 +0530 2 complainant Surendra Kannoje, Khoman kannoje, Priyanka Dubey, Priya Dubey and Sakshi Dubey the superintendent of Police Mahasamund, which was investigated by Sub Inspector Shiv Prasad. Sub-Inspector Shiv Prasad has investigated the above three complaints and presented the investigation report before me. On observation, it was found that the present applicant Varun Sahu, who was posted as a ward boy in the District Hospital Mahasamund, was found cheating the complainants and their families in the name of providing them jobs in the Health Department, by taking Rs. 40,000/- from Surendra Kannoje, Rs. 40,000/- from Khoman Kannoje, Rs. 1,50,000/-from Priyanka Dubey and Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sakshi Sharma, totaling Rs. 3,80,000. On which, the crime under Section 420 of the Indian PenalCode was found against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, as per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred on 22.04.2019, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 03.04.2025, and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant for such an inordinate delay. It is further submitted that the applicant neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offence and that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to establish his involvement. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was working as a Ward Boy in Government Hospital, Mahasamund, and during the period from 14.02.2022 to 18.12.2022, he was suffering from epilepsy, due to which he could not attend his duties, and the Chief Medical and Health Officer had issued 3 notices to him regarding his unauthorized absence. Thereafter, upon receiving the departmental communications, the applicant submitted his joining report on 19.12.2022. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.06.2026. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 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 levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 10.06.2026, coupled with the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Varun Sahu, involved in Crime No. 135/2025 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, be released on bail on furnishing 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 4 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 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 vaibhav