1 CGHC010332332026 2026:CGHC:38367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8020 of 2026 Deepraj Gaikwad S/o Krishan Rao Gaikwad Aged About 34 Years R/o Sursabandha Tirri, Police Station - Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 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. 108/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Prakash Kumar Thakur, alleges that the accused, Deepraj Gaikwad, dishonestly induced him on the pretext of securing direct recruitment to the post of Forest Guard (Vanrakshak) in the Forest Department. Between ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.09.01 11:12:22 +0530 2 11.06.2025 and 28.05.2026, the accused allegedly obtained a total sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- from the complainant, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid through UPI transactions and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash near the gate of the Dangania Electricity Office, Raipur. In furtherance of the alleged fraud, the accused provided the complainant with a forged photocopy of an official appointment order. Upon verification with the Forest Department, the said document was found to be forged and fabricated. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, the accused allegedly continued to evade repayment. Consequently, FIR No. 108/2026 was registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 341(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to the alleged offence. Apart from the above, the evidence collected by the prosecution is also not prima facie sufficient to establish the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing monetary dispute arising out of a bakery-related transaction. The present criminal case has been orchestrated by the complainant solely with an ulterior motive to evade repayment of the outstanding dues payable to the applicant. He also submits that the prosecution case rests primarily upon documentary evidence and written complaints, which have already been seized by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no possibility or likelihood of the applicant tampering with the material evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the applicant has aged parents who require regular care and support. The 3 responsibility of providing food, shelter, and medical assistance to the two elderly individuals has entirely fallen upon their maternal uncle, causing severe financial strain and an undue logistical burden upon an extended family member who has his own familial liabilities. He submits that the allegations concerning the alleged creation, execution, and delivery of forged appointment orders are matters of strict proof and are required to be established during the course of trial. The applicant categorically denies any involvement in the creation, preparation, distribution, or delivery of any such forged document. He also submits that the present applicant has only 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case is under the IPC and another case is under the NI Act, which have already been explained in Part D of the present bail application. He further submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 30.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. 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 that the present applicant only 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case is under the IPC and another case is under the NI Act, which have already been explained in Part D of the present bail application and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since, 30.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present 4 applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Deepraj Gaikwad, involved in Crime No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 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 his 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 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek