[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
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. 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
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.
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
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
