1 CGHC010317072026 2026:CGHC:36568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7563 of 2026 Roshan Verma S/o Ghurup Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chipa, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C. G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C. G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shalin Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This is the *rst bail application *led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 227/2026 registered at Police Station- Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the o8ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Bharat Lilhare, lodged a written report at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, alleging that on 28.04.2026, the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sarpanch of Village Chipa called him and informed him that he had signed an NOC in favour of Roshan Verma and asked him to come to his farmhouse. When the complainant reached the farmhouse, several persons, namely Bhulao Lilhare, Pintu, Channu, Rohit, Nidesh and the present applicant, were present there. The present Sarpanch, namely Om Prakash Lilhare, informed the complainant that he had issued an NOC and allotted an Abadi Patta in favour of the applicant. Thereupon, the complainant stated that the said NOC had been shown as issued on 28.04.2026, whereas he had neither signed nor issued any such NOC and had not met the applicant since morning, as he was at his farmhouse. It was further alleged that the applicant had forged the complainant’s signature and seal, despite the complainant having ceased to be the Sarpanch about seven years ago, and had falsely implicated him by using his forged signature and seal. On the basis of the said report, an FIR was registered against the applicant, whereafter he was taken into custody and, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been *led before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has neither forged any signature nor committed any o8ence as alleged. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially between the former Sarpanch and the present Sarpanch, and the applicant has been made a scapegoat in the said dispute. The statement of the complainant recorded during investigation also 3 re?ects the same version, indicating that the present Sarpanch had pressurized the former Sarpanch to admit that he had issued the NOC in favour of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and his continued incarceration would cause serious hardship to his family. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been *led before the competent Court, he is in jail since 04.05.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he, in connivance with other persons, used a forged signature and seal of the complainant, who was the former Sarpanch, for obtaining an NOC and Abadi Patta in his favour. It is further submitted that the allegations are supported by the statements recorded during investigation and that the o8ence alleged against the applicant is serious in nature. Hence, considering the allegations and the material available on record, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the allegation against the applicant is that he 4 forged the signature and seal of the former Sarpanch and used the same for obtaining an NOC and Abadi Patta in his favour, but also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2026, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Roshan Verma, involved in Crime No. 227/2026 registered at Police Station- Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the o8ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 applicant shall *le an undertaking to the e8ect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date *xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suDcient 5 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 *xed 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 *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 applicant is deliberate or without suDcient 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. ODce is directed to provide a certi*ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan