DEEPRAJ GAIKWAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332332026 2026:CGHC:38367
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8020 of 2026
Deepraj Gaikwad S/o Krishan Rao Gaikwad Aged About 34 Years R/o
Sursabandha Tirri, Police Station - Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Saraswati
Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Date:
2026.09.01
11:12:22
+0530
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Order on Board
31.08.2026
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. 108/2026 registered
at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) offence
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Prakash
Kumar Thakur, alleges that the accused, Deepraj Gaikwad, dishonestly
induced him on the pretext of securing direct recruitment to the post of
Forest Guard (Vanrakshak) in the Forest Department. Between

2
11.06.2025 and 28.05.2026, the accused allegedly obtained a total sum
of Rs. 11,00,000/- from the complainant, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/-
was paid through UPI transactions and Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash near the
gate of the Dangania Electricity Office, Raipur. In furtherance of the
alleged fraud, the accused provided the complainant with a forged
photocopy of an official appointment order. Upon verification with the
Forest Department, the said document was found to be forged and
fabricated. When the complainant demanded the return of his money, the
accused allegedly continued to evade repayment. Consequently, FIR No.
108/2026 was registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 341(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant has neither
committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to the
alleged offence. Apart from the above, the evidence collected by the
prosecution is also not prima facie sufficient to establish the involvement
of the applicant in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant is
entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing
monetary dispute arising out of a bakery-related transaction. The present
criminal case has been orchestrated by the complainant solely with an
ulterior motive to evade repayment of the outstanding dues payable to
the applicant. He also submits that the prosecution case rests primarily
upon documentary evidence and written complaints, which have already
been seized by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no possibility
or likelihood of the applicant tampering with the material evidence or
influencing the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the
applicant has aged parents who require regular care and support. The

3
responsibility of providing food, shelter, and medical assistance to the
two elderly individuals has entirely fallen upon their maternal uncle,
causing severe financial strain and an undue logistical burden upon an
extended family member who has his own familial liabilities. He submits
that the allegations concerning the alleged creation, execution, and
delivery of forged appointment orders are matters of strict proof and are
required to be established during the course of trial. The applicant
categorically denies any involvement in the creation, preparation,
distribution, or delivery of any such forged document. He also submits
that the present applicant has only 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case is
under the IPC and another case is under the NI Act, which have already
been explained in Part D of the present bail application. He further
submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 30.05.2026 and
conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant
of regular bail to the present applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case
before the competent Court.
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 that
the present applicant only 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case is under the
IPC and another case is under the NI Act, which have already been
explained in Part D of the present bail application and also considering
the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in
jail since, 30.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some more
time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present

4
applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant – Deepraj Gaikwad, involved in Crime No. 108/2026
registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)
offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 his 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

5
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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek