1 CGHC010316362026 2026:CGHC:42368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7610 of 2026 Mrigank Sinha S/o Sunil Kumar Sinha Aged About 40 Years R/o Trikon Chowk, Near Pahuna Shop, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station - Kotwali, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kotwali, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 589/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a complaint dated 02.05.2022 made by Ajay Kumar Verma, an FIR was registered against the applicant on 05.09.2024 under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur. It is alleged that the applicant fraudulently obtained 15,38,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of cricket ₹ selection, registration and processing fees, and scholarships. The applicant allegedly used forged documents in the name of the Chhattisgarh United Cricket Association and the Directorate of Sports 2 and Youth Welfare Department, Raipur. After investigation, a charge- sheet was filed on 06.05.2026 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would submit that at the time of registration of the FIR on 05.09.2024, the applicant was already detained in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 331/2021; yet, no steps were taken by the investigating agency to formally arrest him in the present crime at that time. He would further submit that only after being enlarged on bail in the earlier matter the applicant was formally arrested in connection with the present case on 07.02.2026. Learned counsel would contend that the charge-sheet has already been presented before the learned trial Court on 06.05.2026, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.02.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time; therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant would vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has actively defrauded the complainant of a huge sum of 15,38,000/- by preparing and using forged documents in the ₹ name of government authorities and cricket associations. He would further submit that the applicant carries criminal antecedents, having been previously involved in Crime No. 331/2021 and Crime No. 42/2022 for similar offences, and thus he may not be granted regular bail. However, he admits that after due investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It is specifically alleged that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs. 15,38,000/- to the applicant on various occasions. The case diary contains transaction of different amounts i.e. Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 3 7,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-, etc which were transferred to the applicant’s bank account on different dates. It is further admitted by the complainant that, at the relevant time, the applicant was running a cricket academy. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court; the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate; the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 07.02.2026; and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the ₹ satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim