1 CGHC010346362026 2026:CGHC:39731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8322 of 2026 • Shiva Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Raikona Police Station Sarsiwan District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarsiwan District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 10.09.2026 1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.131/2024 registered at Police Station –Sarsiwan, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 409 read with Section 149, 406, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 10 & 6 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor Interest Act, Section 3 of the Price Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 is in Violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3 in Violation of the Provisions of the unregulated Deposit Schemes (Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes) Act, 2019 and Section 21 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.09.15 15:06:07 +0530 2 of Violation of the Provisions of the Unregulated Deposit Schemes (Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes), Act, 2019. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, the applicant was implicated in Crime No.131 of 2024 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 420, 406, 409/149, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor Interest Act, Section 3 of the Price Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 is in Violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, Section 3 in Violation of the Provisions of the unregulated Deposit Schemes (Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes) Act, 2019 and Section 21 of Violation of the Provisions of the Unregulated Deposit Schemes (Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes), Act, 2019. Applicant was earlier arrested and he was enlarged on bail in MCRC No.8993 of 2024 vide order dated 11.03.2025, thereafter applicant was continuously appeared before the trial Court however, he could not appeared before the trial Court on 09.01.2026 and therefore, arrest warrant has been issued, and the applicant was arrested on 03.04.2026, applicant thereafter submitted an application for grant of regular bail, which was dismissed by impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant could not appeared before the trial Court only on one date and therefore, none appearance of one day could not have been made to the issuance of the arrest warrant and arrest of the applicant when the applicant was extended the benefit of bail by High Court. He also contended that the applicant under take to appear on all the dates to be fixed by the trial Court and co-operate in trial of case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant 3 not only remain absent on the date fixed before the trial Court however, he misused the liberty of bail granted by the High Court, which is taken note of by the learned trial Court in the impugned order. He also contended that after release on bail, applicant had illegally withdrawn the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the bank account which was put on hold and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of grant of bail. He also contended that applicant further by forging the signature of SHO as further withdrawn the Rs.21,08,722/- from the bank account, thereafter two crime bearing No.389 of 2025 and 390 of 2025. 5. At this stage counsel for the applicant submits that in both the crime numbers applicant was enlarged on bail by High Court in MCRC No.7835 of 2026 and MCRC No.7816 of 2025 on 21.08.2026. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 7. It is not in disputed by learned counsel for the applicant that the arrest warrant was issued by the learned trial Court on account of non-appearance of the applicant on the date fixed for hearing. From the document enclosed along with the bail application as Annexure- A/3, it is also apparent that in the subsequent crime registered against the applicant for commission of offence after his enlargement on bail, the High Court has further granted bail in the MCRC numbers as mentioned above on 21.08.2026, in the aforementioned facts of the case, I am the considered view that present is a fit case to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail 4 bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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. (d) 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Vaishali