1 CGHC010346562026 2026:CGHC:42642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8716 of 2026  Karan Karmali S/o Gopal Karmali, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Sandi, Police Station - Sikandiri, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ambagarh Chowki, District - Mohla - Manpur - Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.09.2026 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. 284/2018 registered at Police Station : Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohala-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. 2 2. Facts of the present case are that applicant was arrested in connection with afore-stated offence and he was initially granted bail on 07.02.2022 in Bail Appl. No. 100/2022. Thereafter, applicant continued to appear before the learned trial Court through his counsel. However on 23.04.2026, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court and arrest warrant was issued against him. Subsequently, he was produced before the trial Court on 23.06.2026 and was sent into judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant failed to appear before the learned trial Court once on 23.04.2026 due to improper follow-up and miscommunication with his local counsel and arrest warrant was issued against him on the same date. He further submits that applicant has already suffered the consequence of non-appearance before the learned trial Court. He contends that learned trial Court ought to have followed the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation1. He further contends that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the applicant, he is languishing in jail since 23.06.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time. He prays to allow this application. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail 1. (2021) 10 SCC 773 3 application. He submits that the applicant was re-arrested on account of his non-appearance before the learned trial Court, and there is a risk of him absconding, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Admittedly, applicant was initially granted bail on 07.02.2022 upon furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 25,000/- and a personal bond for the like amount. Thereafter, he continued to appear before the learned trial Court regularly. However, on 23.04.2026, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared before this Court and bail bonds were cancelled on the same and arrest warrant was issued. Thereafter, on 23.06.2026, applicant was produced before the trial Court and was sent into judicial custody. 7. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) while addressing non-appearance, default, and the risk of absconding framed strict procedural safeguards to balance trial court attendance with individual liberty and held that Courts should ordinarily follow the procedure of issuing summons, thereafter bailable warrant and, if so warranted, non-bailable warrant. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted, and the applicant 4 has remained in custody since 23.06.2026 with the trial likely to take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b)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; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. - Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.10.01 14:38:00 +0530