1 2026:CGHC:11707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2298 of 2026 Swatantra Kaushal S/o Shri Kesu Ram Kaushal, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Baliyara, P.S. Arjuni, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O0cer, Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application :led under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 219/2025 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4525/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 on merits with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report before the concerned Police Station alleging that the present applicant had taken an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant and Rs. 12,00,000/- from his friend on the pretext of providing employment. However, despite receiving the said amount, the applicant allegedly failed to provide the promised employment to them and did not return the money. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an o?ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and started investigation in the matter. Hence, the present bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merit with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously and the applicant is in jail since 19.03.2025 and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, on 08.08.2025 charges were framed and after framing of charge, out of 08 prosecution witnesses, no prosecution witnesses have been examined in the case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has committed a serious o?ence of cheating by dishonestly inducing the complainant and his friend to part with a total amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- on the false pretext of providing employment. It is further submitted that after receiving the said amount, the applicant neither provided the 3 promised employment nor returned the money to the complainant and his friend. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the o?ence and the allegations levelled against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this is the second bail application and the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits with a direction to conclude the trial expeditiously and so far as the status of the trial is concerned, on 08.08.2025 charges were framed and out of 08 prosecution witnesses, no prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and summons have been issued, further the applicant is in jail since 19.03.2025, he has no previous criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Swatantra Kaushal, involved in Crime No. 219/2025 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the o?ence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall :le an undertaking to the e?ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4 :xed 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 :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without su0cient 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 :xed 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 :xed 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 su0cient 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. 5 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of certi:ed copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. O0ce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan