1 CGHC010325412026 2026:CGHC:37595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7811 of 2026 1 - Pramod Chauhan Son Of Late Mohiram Chauhan, Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Jhallu, Post Bakul, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla (H.P.), Presently Residing At Housing Board Colony, House No. 422, Dhalli, District Shimla (H.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 connection with Crime No. 455/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, an FIR bearing Crime No. 455/2019 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC. The applicant was initially granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7126/2019 and was released on 16.01.2020. Subsequently, due to his non-appearance before the Trial Court, arrest warrants were issued on 19.11.2024, pursuant to which the applicant was arrested and produced before the Trial Court on 13.07.2026 and has remained in judicial custody thereafter. His subsequent bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge (CBI) vide order dated 23.07.2026. The case is presently at the stage of framing of charge/prosecution evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and that his non-appearance before the Trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to compelling circumstances, including severe snowfall restricting his movement from Himachal Pradesh, the prolonged illness and subsequent demise of his father on 05.05.2026 and the ongoing medical treatment of his ailing mother. It is further submitted that the applicant had earlier been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7126/2019 and had not misused the liberty so granted or tampered 3 with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.07.2026 and has been cooperating with the trial; pursuant to the application moved on his behalf on 25.07.2026, charges were framed on 27.07.2026. It is further submitted that only three prosecution witnesses remain to be examined and that the complainant, despite having opposed the grant of bail, has failed to appear before the Trial Court for recording of evidence on 28.07.2026 and 10.08.2026. The trial is, therefore, likely to take some time to conclude. In these circumstances, further detention of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was earlier granted bail by this Court, but subsequently failed to appear before the Trial Court, resulting in issuance of arrest warrants against him. It is further submitted that the applicant remained absent for a considerable period and, therefore, failed to abide by the conditions of the liberty earlier granted to him. Although only three prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, the conduct of the applicant in remaining absent from the proceedings disentitles him from the discretionary relief of bail. Considering the conduct of the applicant and the stage of the trial, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration that the applicant was earlier granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4 7126/2019, but subsequently failed to appear before the Trial Court, resulting in issuance of arrest warrants against him, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not satisfactorily explained his prolonged non-appearance before the Trial Court. The fact that the applicant remained absent despite the pendency of the trial and was ultimately arrested pursuant to the warrant issued against him is a relevant circumstance while considering the present application. Although only three prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, the applicant's previous conduct in not appearing before the Trial Court does not persuade this Court to extend the benefit of bail at this stage. 7. Consequently, the bail application preferred by the applicant Pramod Chauhan in connection with Crime No. 455/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at this stage. 8. The trial Court concerned is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi