Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6215 of 2025 Kanchan Vishwakarma S/o Manoj Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Tamgekala Post- Tamgekala, Tahsil- Ranka, Police Station- Ranka District- Gadhwa (Jharkhand) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Dhaurpur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06/08/2025 Order on Board 1. This is the first 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. 81/2024 registered at Police Station- Dhaurpur District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318(3), 336(3), 338, 340(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Dhaniram, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Dhaurpur stating that a RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 loan of Rs.72,000/- had been sanctioned in the name of his wife from Spandana Sfurti Private Limited, Branch Shankargarh, and that the installments were being regularly paid on time. It is alleged that, for their personal benefit, the branch manager of the company, Suresh Kumar, along with another employee, Sanjay Kumar Sahu, prepared a forged death certificate in the name of the complainant and, on the basis of the said forged document, unlawfully withdrew an amount of Rs.18,000/- from the account of his wife. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered against the co-accused persons, and the name of the present applicant surfaced in this case on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused. Hence, the present application has been preferred. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR in the present case was lodged only against the co-accused persons, namely Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sahu, and the name of the present applicant does not find mention therein, however, the police has subsequently, and without proper basis, implicated the applicant in this case. It is contended that the only material sought to connect the applicant with the alleged offence is the memorandum of co- accused Sanjay Kumar Sahu, which is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the sole ground for prosecution. It is further urged that, as per the prosecution’s own case, an amount of Rs. 16,156/- was credited into the account of Lalo Bai, out of which Rs. 8,000/- is alleged to have been misappropriated by co-accused Suresh 3 Kumar, and there is no allegation or evidence that the applicant derived any wrongful gain or received any money from the said account. It is also pointed out that co-accused person, namely, Sanjay Kumar Sahu and Suresh Kumar have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2024 in MCRC No. 7792/2024 and 11.12.2024 in MCRC No. 8424/2024, respectively. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 23.07.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations involve serious economic offences wherein forged documents were prepared to misappropriate public funds. Though the applicant’s name was not in the FIR, his involvement surfaced during investigation through the memorandum of the co-accused, which led to recovery of incriminating material. It is contended that economic offences have wider societal impact and must be viewed seriously, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the 4 applicant, and the fact that the primary allegations in the FIR were levelled only against the co-accused persons, namely Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sahu, and the name of the present applicant did not find mention therein. The applicant’s implication is solely on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused Sanjay Kumar Sahu, which, being inadmissible in evidence, cannot be treated as substantive material to prosecute the applicant. Furthermore, as per the prosecution’s own case, the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.16,156/- was credited to the account of Lalo Bai, out of which Rs.8,000/- is stated to have been withdrawn by co-accused Suresh Kumar; there is no material to show that the applicant obtained any wrongful gain or received any amount from the said account. It is also pertinent to note that both co-accused persons, who were the principal actors as per the prosecution case, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 in MCRC No. 7792/2024 and MCRC No. 8424/2024, respectively, further the supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he is in jail since 23.07.2025, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserve to be and are hereby allowed. 7. Let the applicant, Kanchan Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No. 81/2024 registered at Police Station- Dhaurpur District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 318(3), 336(3), 338, 340(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on 5 furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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 6 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