1 2026:CGHC:16405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3228 of 2026 Tarak Ghosh S/o Vijay Kumar Ghosh, Aged About 56 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony Manjhapara Raiyatrai, District Raigarh (C.G.) Pin-496001, Partner- M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, Raigarh District Raigarh. Bearing Gstin- 22aaofj8266d1z9 ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2026 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. 84/2026, registered at Police Station - Basna, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.10 10:51:09 +0530 2 318(4), 316(4), 317(4), 336(2), 338, 340 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.02.2026, the Officer-in- Charge of Basna Police Station received information that two trucks bearing registration Nos. CG-04-JC-4585 and CG-07-AV-5290 were found stationed at Basna Mandi in suspicious circumstances while carrying sponge iron. Upon inquiry, the drivers produced invoices purportedly issued by M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, Raigarh, in favour of M/s Shri Bajrang Bali Enterprises, Raipur. The loaded sponge iron in the two vehicles was found to be 68.398 metric tons and 31.025 metric tons respectively, valued at approximately Rs. 21,09,403/- and Rs. 29,51,847/-. Since the drivers failed to produce weighment slips and the invoices allegedly did not contain proper e-way bill details, suspicion arose regarding theft and illegal transportation of the goods. During interrogation, the drivers allegedly disclosed that one Ranjit Singh had purchased sponge iron from various truck drivers, stored it at his shop, and in connivance with M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, prepared forged invoices for sale of the material to M/s Shri Bajrang Bali Enterprises, Raipur. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR dated 26.02.2026 was registered against the drivers, Sonu Lal Mongre and Rameshwar Manikpuri, along with Ranjit Singh, for offences under Sections 316(4), 317(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340 and 3(5) of the BNS. The present applicant, Tarak Ghosh, being a Partner of M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, has been implicated on the allegation that forged invoices were prepared by the firm. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the 3 applicant submits that he is a partner of M/s Jai Bhole Ispat, a duly registered partnership firm and GST registered entity, which has been engaged in the legitimate business of iron ore, sponge iron and iron scrap for the last 7-8 years with an annual turnover of more than Rs. 240 crores. It is submitted that the firm regularly files its income tax and GST returns, possesses substantial fixed assets, and enjoys an overdraft facility from HDFC Bank, thereby negating the allegation that it is a shell entity. The applicant contends that the alleged transaction was a genuine commercial transaction supported by valid invoices, e- way bills, stock records and banking transactions, including advance payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- received through proper banking channels from M/s Shri Bajrang Bali Enterprises. It is further submitted that there is no legally admissible material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and that he has been implicated solely on the basis of vague allegations and disclosure statements of co-accused persons. The applicant was not named in the FIR and the named accused persons have already been granted bail. It is also submitted that the allegations are documentary in nature, all relevant records are already in possession of the investigating agency, and therefore no further custodial interrogation is necessary. The applicant further alleges that he was illegally apprehended without following due process of law and that the police action was arbitrary and mala fide. It is also submitted that earlier verification by the competent authority had found the firm’s invoices to be proper and legally valid. The applicant and his firm have no connection with the trucks or drivers involved in the case, and the continued sealing of the firm’s godown and seizure of documents has caused serious financial loss. It is lastly 4 submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in CRMP No. 986 of 2026 vide order dated 08.04.2026 directed that no coercive steps be taken against applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant is entitled for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 08.03.2026, and further considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Tarak Ghosh, involved in Crime No. 84/2026, registered at Police Station - Basna, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(4), 317(4), 336(2), 338, 340 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, 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 5 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 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 vaibhav