Chhattisgarh High Court

Filing of charge-sheet and prolonged incarceration justify regular bail in cheating and forgery cases.

ASHISH KUMAR RATH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: March 16, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The complainant, Anand Shukla, alleged that the applicant, acting as the Director of "Soul Art of Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.," induced him to invest in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) by demanding 25% of a Rs. 50,00,000 sum

Source reference: para. 2

Between January and February 2025, the complainant transferred a total of Rs. 10,20,000 to the applicant’s company and personal accounts via RTGS and UPI

Source reference: para. 2

It is alleged that the applicant issued forged tax documents and fake bond papers to the complainant

Source reference: para. 2

Following an investigation into FIR No. 280/2025, the applicant was arrested on September 12, 2025, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed

Source reference: para. 2, 3

The applicant argued that the matter was a civil business dispute and cited medical needs following a 2011 orthopedic surgery

Source reference: para. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of his incarceration

Source reference: para. 1, 6
03

Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail

Source reference: para. 1

Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 338 (Forgery), 336(3) (Forgery of valuable security), 340(2) (Using forged document as genuine), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Source reference: para. 1, 7

Procedural compliance under Sections 84 (Proclamation), 209 (Failure to appear), 269 (Non-attendance), and 351 (Record of evidence) of the BNSS/BNS framework

Source reference: para. 7
04

Reasoning

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the procedural status of the case. It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent trial court

Source reference: para. 4, 6

While the State opposed bail on the grounds of a single criminal antecedent, the Court found that the applicant had been in custody since September 12, 2025. Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the Court reasoned that continued pretrial detention was not warranted under the circumstances

Source reference: para. 4, 6
05

Holding

The High Court granted the bail application, ordering the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties

The bail is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear personally during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and must comply with all court dates or face proceedings for abuse of liberty under the BNS. The trial court was directed to be notified immediately for compliance

Source reference: para. 7, 8
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

ASHISH KUMAR RATHvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · March 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment