Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7654 of 2025 Sujeet Kumar Gupta S/o Late Naresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Ahiyachak, Old Punja National Bank, Katri Sarai, P.S.- Katri Sarai, District - Nalanda, Bihar. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O, P.S. - Charcha District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Deputy Advocate General. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.23 17:21:06 +0530 23.09.2025 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 32/2024 registered at Police Station - Charcha, District - Koriya (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 (C) and (D) of Information and Technology Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Sonai Singh lodged a written report at Police Station concerned wherein stated 2 that complainant received an envelope through Postal Department on 05.02.2024, on opening it, he found there a letter addressed to him with one coupon, as per contents of the letter the complainant informed that he won a prize in result of a lucky draw generated through computer, on being scratched the coupon it revealed that he won a second prize of a Swift Dezire Car, thereafter, complainant made contact with the mobile number quoted in the letter, one Hemant Kumar answered the call who informed him that he has to deposit registration fee of the car Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- for insurance and Rs. 25,000/- on the count of permit, if he wants to get the prize of the car, it is alleged that the complainant deposited the said amount through phone pay on phone numbers as supplied by the said Hemant Kumar, the complainant was told that the car has been dispatched and he has to deposit Rs. 14,500/- toward toll tax, then complainant felt that fraud has been played against him and therefore lodged written complaint and after investigation the applicant/accused has been arrested. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that although the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3503/2025, the present application deserves consideration on fresh grounds. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, and no satisfactory reason has been provided for the same. Moreover, the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the complainant has no grievance 3 against the present applicant/accused and is willing to compound the offence so far as it relates to the present applicant. The complainant has already been examined before the learned Trial Court and has not stated anything incriminating against the applicant. There is no document on record indicating that the applicant was involved in the commission of the offence along with the other co-accused. He has not been shown to be a beneficiary of the stolen property, nor has he received any amount from the alleged crime. The only basis for implicating him appears to be the memorandum statement of a co-accused. It is further submitted that out of the 10 prosecution witnesses listed, only 3 have been examined till date. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused persons, who are similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 4902/2024, and the case of the applicant stands on similar footing. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant is in judicial custody since 27.03.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order 06.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3503/2025. Hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 4 diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations made against the applicant, and the fact that although the first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 3503/2025, further, as per the order-sheet of the Trial Court, there are as many as 10 prosecution witnesses listed, out of which 3 witnesses have been examined till date, further the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and he has been in judicial custody since 27.03.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the Second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Sujeet Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. 32/2024 registered at Police Station - Charcha, District - Koriya (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 (C) and (D) of Information and Technology Act, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two heavy sureties, out of which one of the them should be a family member 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 5 on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (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 BNS. (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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of three months, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti