1 2026:CGHC:13244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1916 of 2026 Lukeshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Dhannu Lal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Gurur (Shanti Nagar), P.S. Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) Permanent Address- Senior Mig 127/1, Housing Board Colony, Hatkachora, P.S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Panduka, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Sanjay Sahu and Mr. Jitendra Chandrakar, Advocates. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 33/2025, registered at Police Station : Panduka, District – Gariyaband (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.20 13:04:25 +0530 2 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 26.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6700 of 2025. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2025 written complaint submitted by one Shri Mahendra Sahu before the concerned police station in respect of the incident alleged to have been took place between 25.04 2025 to 05.05.2025. On the basis of written complaint FIR has been lodged on 14.05.2025, wherein,it was alleged that the applicant had obtained a sum of 16,00,000/- from complainant on the pretext of securing employment on the post of Data Entry Operator in the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (C.S.P.D.C.L.) for his son Himanshu Sahu, daughter-in-law- Menka Sahu, and brother-in-law- Khemendra Sahu. It was further alleged that the applicant had obtained Rs.29,00,000/- from one Goyal Sonkar, an acquaintance of the complainant, for securing employment in the post of Data Entry Operator in C.S.P.D.C.L. for Leena Sonkar, Vaishali Sonkar, and Khushi Dewangan, and for securing employment in the post of Junior Engineer for Ghanshyam Sonkar. Additionally, it was alleged that the applicant had taken Rs.5,00,000/- from Ajay Kumar Sahu for securing the post of Data Entry Operator, and Rs.5,00,000/- from Rahul Sahu for securing the post of Data Entry Operator for their respective wives, Smt. Anju Sahu and Smt. Ekta Sahu. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was asserted that the applicant had dishonestly obtained aggregate sum of Rs.60,00,000/- from various persons on an the false pretext of providing employment in C.S.P.D.C.L. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. in the present case registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and there is no iota of evidence on record to establish his involvement, nor does he have any criminal antecedents or background; that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.05.2025 and has already undergone more than nine months of incarceration, whereas the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences is up to seven years, and such prolonged pre-trial detention would amount to punitive detention; that the case is triable by a Magistrate and despite lapse of considerable time since filing of the charge- sheet, no witness has been examined and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future; that as per Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on account of delay in trial, however, his application as well as the subsequent revision have been rejected by the Courts below; that the mother of the applicant is suffering from cataract and requires medical treatment and surgery, and the applicant is the only person to take care of his family; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses; and that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate bail bonds and sureties and undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application 4 of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, and further, as per the order sheet of the trial Court, though charges have been framed, no witnesses have been examined till date, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 14.05.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Lukeshwar Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 33/2025, registered at Police Station : Panduka, District – Gariyaband (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) 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 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 5 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of Six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav