1 2026:CGHC:4794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9787 of 2025 • Rajkuamr Sahu S/o Rangmohan Sahu, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bahirkela Ps And Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy.A.G. For Objector Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 297/2025, registered at Police Station – Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution, that on 09.11.2025 an FIR was lodged by the complainant manager of Shriram finance Company branch Gharghoda Rakesh Tiwary alleging that one VirendraPratapPurseth, Khemraj Gupta and Sudhir Nishad who employees/sales managers of VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.30 12:07:23 +0530 2 Shriram Finance company branch Gharghoda have sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Thirty Lakhs) to 26 persons during the period from 12.09-2017 to 15.03.2019 showing shops of different persons and by preparing false document. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is only one criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant of the year 2019. It is further submitted that there is a delay of eight years in lodging the FIR against the applicant and the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well learned counsel for the Objector opposes the bail application and submits that till date chargesheet has not been filed in the present case. Further, applicant has one criminal antecedent as complaint case No.6640 of 2022 for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act read with 420 of IPC before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Raipur (Chhattisarh), therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there is a delay of eight years in lodging the FIR against the applicant and the applicant has only one criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant and the applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 3 7. Let applicant, Rajkumar Sahu involved in Crime No.297/2025, registered at Police Station – Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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. (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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali