Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6219 of 2025 Sumit Das S/o Santosh Das Aged About 26 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Village - Sajabahri, Police Station - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kusmunda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/08/2025 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. 57/2025 registered at Police Station Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Panel Code (IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Bhola 2 Shankar Kaivart, lodged a written report with the Superintendent of Police, Korba, on March 6, 2025. According to the report, the complainant's daughter, Jayshree Kaivart, had completed her B.E. and was preparing for competitive exams. In 2018, she met Chetan Das Mahant, who claimed to have connections in the ministry and promised to secure a job for her as Assistant Director (Khadi Gramodyog) for Rs. 26 lakhs. The complainant agreed to pay the amount in installments. He paid a total of Rs. 26 lakhs between December 10, 2018, and August 11, 2020, through cash and checks. However, his daughter's job was not secured, and Chetan Das Mahant failed to refund the money. The complainant alleged that Chetan Das Mahant had cheated him and others, including his sister-in-law Kaleshwari Kaivart (Rs. 5 lakhs) and friend Bhuneshwar Das Vaishnav (Rs. 5 lakhs). The complainant claimed that Chetan Das Mahant had used the money to build a house and buy a car. Based on the complaint, a case was registered, and the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the co-accused, Chetan Das Mahant, who was named in the FIR, had taken money from the complainant and other persons for providing jobs and from the memorandum statement of the said co-accused persons, the name of the applicant came to light, wherein he stated that the money he took from the complainant and other persons was paid to the applicant 3 and other co-accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 27.06.2025, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2023 under the IPC, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant, in collusion with other co-accused persons, fraudulently took money from the complainant and other persons for providing jobs to the complainant's daughter and other persons and later on, failed to provide the jobs and also failed to refund the money. The complainant further alleged that the applicant used the money for personal gain, such as building a house and buying a car. He also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent of identical nature, therefore, he is a habitual offender and his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant, in collusion with other co-accused persons, fraudulently took money from the complainant and other persons for providing jobs to the complainant's daughter and other persons and later on, failed to provide the jobs and also failed to refund the money, the said money was used by the applicant for his personal gain, but 4 considering the fact that the main accused in the present case is Chetan Das Mahant, who took money from the complainant and other persons for providing job, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the aforementioned co-accused, also considering the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which is of the year 2023 under the IPC and is languishing in jail since 27.06.2025, further charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Sumit Das, involved in Crime No. 57/2025 registered at Police Station Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Panel Code (IPC), 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:- 7. 8. (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 5 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 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil