Chattisgarh High Court
Bhishma Narayan Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11468
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2170 of 2026
Bhishma Narayan Sharma S/o Kailash Sharma Aged About 26 Years
Resident Of Infront Of Jai Ambe Hospital In The House Of Nisha Sahu
Devpuri Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Raipur,district- Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police of Police
Station New Rajendra Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.03.2026
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. 352/2024 registered at Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was submitted by Devki Dhruw alleging that co-accused Swayam Sharma falsely represented himself as a worker of Indian National Trade Union Congress and assured her that he would secure a government job for her in the Indian Railways. It is alleged that in furtherance of the said representation he, along with his wife Dhaneshwari Verma, operated a placement agency in the name and style of Sai Business Consultancy, Job Placement, situated at Progressive Point, Lalpur, Raipur, and on the basis of such inducement the complainant and several other persons paid different amounts of money to the accused persons. The complainant specifically alleged that she paid a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to Swayam Sharma, and during the course of investigation it was revealed that a total amount of Rs. 29,50,000/- was transferred by various victims into the bank accounts of the co-accused persons. It is further alleged that so far as the present applicant is concerned, only one victim, namely Kewal Narayan Sahu, has made an allegation that he paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- under similar pretext, and accordingly the police registered the case. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested, Hence, the present bail application has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that out of 45 prosecution witnesses, only 12 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that 3 similarly situated co-accused, namely, Dhaneshwari Verma @ Priti Sharma has already been granted second bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 in MCRC No. 9419/2025 and further similarly situated co-accused, namely, Shyam Sundar Rao has already been granted third bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 in MCRC No. 1111/2026. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and he is in jail since 02.09.2024, the 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 on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused.
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, nature and gravity of offence and the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co-accused, namely, Dhaneshwari Verma @ Priti Sharma has already been granted second bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 in MCRC No. 9419/2025 and further similarly situated co-accused, namely, Shyam Sundar Rao has already been granted third bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 in MCRC No. 4 1111/2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the fact that out of 45 prosecution witnesses, only 12 witnesses have been examined, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 02.09.2024, and the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some more time for its conclusion, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant - Bhishma Narayan Sharma, involved in Crime No. 352/2024 registered at Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 5 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan