1 2026:CGHC:18990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2560 of 2026 1 - Makrand Mehar S/o Khilendra Mehar Aged About 44 Years R/o Moti Nagar Brij Nagar, Near Krishna Public School, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer Police Station Ajad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.04.2026 1. This is the Second 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.84/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution's case, on 01.04.2025, the complainant, Gulshan Vishwakarma, filed a complaint alleging that the applicant opened a bank account at Federal Bank, ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2026.04.24 18:09:30 +0530 2 Ambedkar Chowk, near Jail Road, Raipur, in his name without his knowledge, using his documents. The applicant also allegedly took his ATM and passbook, promising to return them after verification within two days. However, a month later, the bank discovered suspicious transactions and informed him through a notice dated 26.02.2025, about unauthorized transactions totaling Rs. 9,21,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Rs.42,000/- and Rs. 5,11,000/-. Following this, a written complaint was lodged, and an offence was registered. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 12.06.2025 in MCRC No.4400/2025 on merits, the applicant has no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that, according to the prosecution's case, it is clear that the present applicant did not receive any benefit from the complainant, and there is no evidence of loss to the complainant. He further submits that there is no evidence on record indicating the applicant's involvement in the crime. Notably, the complainant's statements are contradictory, as he claims the account was opened without his knowledge, yet also alleges that the applicant misused his ATM and passbook, which were taken with a promise to return them after verification within two days. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the present applicant committed any act 3 of cheating against the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that charges were framed on 19.06.2026, and the order-sheet in this regard has been filed along with a covering memo. It is contended that there are as many as 12 prosecution witnesses, out of whom none has been examined till date, and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.04.2025. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. The learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that this Court had earlier rejected the bail application of present applicant on merits, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though there is no any criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant. The charges has already been framed and there are total 12 witnesses out of whom none has been examined till date, as a consequence the trial will take some more time to be concluded. The applicant is in jail since 01.04.2025, therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this second 4 bail application. 8. Let the Applicant - Makrand Mehar, involved in Crime No. 84/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 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 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 5 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd /- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saxena