1 CGHC010331392026 2026:CGHC:38336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7963 of 2026 Deepak Kumar Shrivas S/o Prakash Narayan Shrivas Aged About 48 Years R/o Geevra Basti, Contractor Mohalla, Police Station - Kusmunda, Korba, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Near Paddy Market, Ramkrishna Nagar, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 125/2025 registered at Police Station- Balco, District - Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Gouri Shankar Sahu, submitted a written report alleging that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 applicant, on the pretext of securing and providing a government job to the complainant’s daughter, had taken a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from him on 04.07.2020. It is alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amount, the applicant failed to secure or provide the promised government employment. 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. It is submitted that there is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged transaction is stated to have taken place on 04.07.2020, whereas the written report was lodged only on 05.03.2025. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties arises out of a transaction concerning an agreement to sell dated 19.10.2021, whereby the applicant had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant in respect of certain parcels of land situated at Village Rishda, Tahsil and District Korba. He submits that subsequently, upon making enquiries regarding the complainant’s power of attorney and the title of the land, the applicant came to know that there was a serious dispute concerning the said property and that the particulars of the original owner mentioned in the power of attorney were also found to be doubtful. Thereafter, the applicant demanded return of his money and, when the same was not returned, he himself submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 18.02.2025, followed by further applications before the police authorities. It is contended that thereafter, the complainant lodged the present report against the 3 applicant on 05.03.2025, which indicates that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a counterblast to the applicant’s complaint. It is further submitted that, as per the police report filed before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, serious doubts were also raised regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney relied upon by the complainant. He also submits that the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC and the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1007/2024, and he is in jail since 09.08.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court 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 counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is serious in nature, inasmuch as he is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on the assurance of securing and providing a government job to the complainant’s daughter. It is further submitted that the applicant has dishonestly obtained the aforesaid amount from the complainant and, despite receiving the same, failed to fulfil the assurance so given. He also submits that the defence taken by the applicant regarding the subsequent agreement to sell and the alleged dispute concerning the power of attorney are matters which require appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail. He 4 further submits that the applicant has 02 previous criminal antecedents. It is further contended that the delay in lodging the report, by itself, does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when the allegations disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged transaction relates to the year 2020, whereas the written report was lodged only on 05.03.2025, after a considerable delay. It is also evident that prior thereto, the applicant had submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 18.02.2025, alleging non-return of the amount paid by him in connection with the agreement to sell dated 19.10.2021 and raising a dispute regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney and title of the land. Thus, the existence of a prior complaint by the applicant and the subsequent lodging of the report by the complainant are circumstances which require consideration. Further the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents out of which one case is under the IPC and the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1007/2024. Further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 09.08.2026, the 5 charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and trial is likely to take some more time, therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Deepak Kumar Shrivas, involved in Crime No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station- Balco, District - Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 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 6 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 Rahul Dewangan