1 2026:CGHC:2286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9256 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Purniram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Mudpar, Police Station- Navagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pathalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vinod Tekam, GA. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.197/2025 registered at Police Station Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.01.15 18:55:06 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Jageshwar Lal Yadav has submitted a written report that in the year, 2023 one Mohammad Siraj Alam, Imran Khan, Santosh Kumar Sao and other persons have organized a meeting at Hotel Manya of CBULLS Global Solution Trading Company in which it was informed that upon investment in the company, the investor will get 1% per day and in 10 month, the amount will be double. In this way from 23/08/2023 to 10/06/2024, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- through cash and phone, but the amount has not been returned and in this way they have committed forgery and criminal intimidation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no material or evidence on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence; he has no role in the alleged conspiracy or cheating. He would submit that the applicant is not a Director of CBULLS Global Solution Trading Company; rather, the complainant himself is shown as a Director in the company’s official website and brochure, copies of which are placed on record and the applicant is merely an investor who invested approximately Rs.66,99,274/- through banking channels, as reflected in his bank statements. He would submit that the company’s Directors issued cheques towards repayment of the applicant’s investment, all of which were dishonoured, establishing that the applicant is a victim rather than a beneficiary of the alleged offence. He would submit that upon dishonour of cheques, the applicant lodged written complaints against the Directors, including the complainant, with the police authorities; however, no action was taken on his complaints, while he has been arrested on the complainant’s report. He would submit that 3 the charge sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 18/10/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and he would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, period of detention of the applicant since 18/10/2025, charge sheet has been filed and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Santosh Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No.197/2025 registered at Police Station Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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. 4 (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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri