Geetesh Paradker S/o Shri Sharad Govind Paradkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Sai Mandir v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Civil Line, District - Raipur
Case Details
1 GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.08.07 20:28:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:39283 NAFR MCRC No. 4033 of 2025 Geetesh Paradker S/o Shri Sharad Govind Paradkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Badban, Police Station - City Kotwali, Chhindwara (M.P.), (Note - Surnames Of Applicant And His Father Are Mentioned As They Write And Also Mentioned In Their Aadhar Cards) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Civil Line, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL. Respondent/State Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2025 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.535/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC (Note- Sections of offences are 2 mention as per per their mentioning in Final report. Offences under section 467, 469 and 34 of IPC are not mentioned in impugned order). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Shri Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Secretary to her excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh State, namely Ms. Anusuiya Uike lodged a written First Information on 22.08.2019, in police station Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.), of which sum and substance was that her excellency Ms. Anusuiya Uike took oath as Governor of Chhattisgarh State on 29.07.2019, and before taking said oath she was holding post of Vice Chairperson of National Scheduled Tribe Commission, Government of India. The letter pad of Ms. Anusuiya Uike, when she was holding the said post of vice Chairperson, was misused by unknown person and a letter with fake contents and forged signature of Ms. Anusuiya Uike was written and addressed to Shri Vinay Kumar Bhagat, MLA of Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha. The letter was written with intent to defame the image of her excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh State namely Ms. Anusuiya Uike and to put under dispute the post which she was holding. The FIR was registered against unknown person as crime no. 535/2019, in police station Civil Line Raipur (C.G.), u/s 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently offence under section 34 of IPC added. During investigation, the evidences were collected and according to police, it traced Ajay Verma and Geetesh Paradkar as authors of the offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the prosecution story, upon its face value, is taken as true, even then the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant as ingredients of the 3 offence are not fulfilled. He would submit that out of alleged offences, only offences under section 467 and 468 of IPC are non-bailable and remaining are bailable and according to prosecution itself the contents on letter Pad were written with intention to defame the authority and to damage her reputation which comes under section 469 of IPC, which is bailable offence. He would submit that as per the prosecution story only addresses written on envelops have been found in hand writing of the applicant. Even if it is so, it cannot be presumed that the writer of the address upon the envelop was also aware of the contents written on the letter to be placed inside it and to be posted. He would further submit that if on the request of author of the letter allegedly Ajay Verma (If he is author) the applicant, just to help, wrote down some of the given addresses, upon the envelops, inference cannot be drawn that he has done so with common intention along with Ajay Verma and he was also aware of the contents of the letter and the contents of the letter are not so which may have brought any financial benefit to the applicant. He would submit that the applicant is in jail since 11/05/2025, charge sheet has been filed 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. He would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court and applicant is resident of Madhya Pradesh. 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, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation 4 levelled against the applicant, charge sheet has been filed, period of detention of the applicant since 11/05/2025 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-Geetesh Paradker, involved in Crime No.535/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 R/w Section 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with local 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 5 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