Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6783 of 2025 Vijay Verma S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Birgaon Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 509/2024, registered at Police Station : Mahasamund District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Hiralal Lodhi, lodged a written complaint at Mahasamund Police Station alleging that in Criminal Case No. H-28/2024, State vs. Timothy Jal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and Others, under Section 20B of the NDPS Act, pending before the Learned Ist ASJ, Mahasamund, bail was granted to accused Timothy Jal and Surendra Chura vide order dated 29.07.2024 in Bail Petition No. 538/2024, relating to Crime No. 85/2024 of Police Station Komakhan. It is alleged that Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Gangaram, stood as a surety for both accused persons on 02.08.2024 and 14.08.2024, submitting a Rin Pustika bearing No. 215574 for a surety amount of ₹10,000/- each, which, upon verification by the Tehsildar, Arang, was found to be completely fake. During investigation, it was revealed that the said Rin Pustika was forged by Vijay Verma, who had prepared the fake document, leading to the registration of Crime No. 509/2024 and the subsequent arrest of the applicant/accused. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there are no forged documents seized from the possession of the present applicant and also there is a delay in lodging the FIR against him. He also submits that as per the memorandum statement of co-accused, the present applicant was arrested only on suspicion and nothing has been seized from the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has 02 previous criminal antecedents which has been explained in this bail application, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, he is in jail since 13.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that the complainant, Hiralal Lodhi, lodged a written complaint at Mahasamund Police Station alleging that Santosh Kumar Sahu, stood as surety for accused Timothy Jal and Surendra Chura in a case under Section 20B of the NDPS Act by submitting a Rin Pustika bearing No. 215574 for a surety amount of Rs.10,000/- each. Upon verification by the Tehsildar, Arang, the document was found to be completely fake, and investigation revealed that it had been forged by Vijay Verma who is a present applicant in this case. He also submits that applicant has 02 more criminal antecedents under the IPC. It is argued that the applicant actively participated in producing forged documents before the Court and having criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the said Rin Pustika was forged by the present applicant, who had prepared the fake document, but he is in jail since 13.05.2025 and further considering the fact that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents which has been explained in this bail application, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some 4 time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the applicant, Vijay Verma, involved in Crime No. 509/2024, registered at Police Station : Mahasamund District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice