DEVENDRA SEN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
2026:CGHC:12478


2026:CGHC:12478
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2427 of 2026
Devendra Sen S/o Prahlad Sen Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Behind
Lodhipara Crystal Arcade, Khaparabhatthi, Besides Rinku Kirana Shop,
P.S. Mowa, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
16.03.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
152/2025, registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406,
467, 468, 470, 471, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, 1860.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that during the course of
investigation it was found that the amount deposited by the
complainant and other victims was credited in the bank account of

2
2026:CGHC:12478
co-accused Balbir Singh. During interrogation, the said co-accused
disclosed that the present applicant Devendra Sen was involved in
preparing forged LIC deposit receipts. It is alleged that the present
applicant used to prepare fake deposit receipts in the name of
policy holders and for this purpose co-accused Balbir Singh used to
charge Rs. 5,000/-. It is further alleged that after generating the
receipts in the computer system, the same were deleted from the
system in order to conceal the offence. Based upon such, aforesaid
offences were registered against the applicant along with co-
accused.
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 the prosecution has concocted a false case
against the applicant which is not supported by any cogent
evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant is neither named
in the FIR nor any allegation has been made against him therein
and his alleged involvement as reflected in the charge-sheet is
baseless. He further submits that the applicant has been working at
Sagar Choice Center since the year 2021 and prior thereto he was
working at an LIC premium center run by his maternal uncle Vijay
Kumar Singh, from where he was ousted due to denial of his salary,
therefore the allegation that the receipts were issued from the office
of his maternal uncle has no substance. It is also submitted that no
recovery of any receipt has been made from the applicant and no
relevant data has been found in his mobile phone. He further
submits that the memorandum statement of co-accused Balbeer

3
2026:CGHC:12478
Singh Sains refers to payment of Rs.5,000/- to one Devendra
Nishad, who is a different person and not the present applicant. It is
lastly submitted that one of the co-accused persons, namely Smt.
Saranjeet Kaur, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court in MCRC (A) No. 646/2025 vide order dated 05.05.2025 and
the applicant has been in custody for more than three months and
the investigation has already been completed, therefore he prays
that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that considering the nature and gravity of
the allegations against the present applicant and his involvement in
preparation of forged LIC receipts, he is not entitled to be enlarged
on bail. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-
diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant
since 25.11.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant
has no previous criminal antecedent and the name of the applicant
does not appear in the FIR, no further interrogation is required and
the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore,
without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .
8. Let applicant, Devendra Sen , involved in Crime No. 152/2025,

4
2026:CGHC:12478
registered at Police Station : Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467,
468, 470, 471, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC, 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

5
2026:CGHC:12478
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.
9. 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
Kunal