1 2025:CGHC:11475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 332 of 2025 Rounak Dey S/o Deepak Dey Aged About 27 Years R/o Shri Siddhi Colony, Mana Basti, Mana Camp, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Sharad Prakash Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.422/2024 registered at Police Station GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.10 11:17:44 +0530 2 Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 381, 406, 328 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 20-05-2024 the complainant, along with his son, departed for Delhi, leaving the applicant in charge of the office and its operations during their absence. Prior to leaving, the complainant had purportedly secured a sum of Rs. 32,00,000/-in a suitcase, which was kept in the office restroom, and had entrusted the applicant with the keys to the office while specifically instructing him to ensure the safekeeping of the premises and its assets. The said amount was intended for payment of employee salaries and other operational expenses of the press. Upon returning on 12-07-2024, the complainant discovered that the suitcase containing the aforementioned amount was missing. Upon an internal inquiry, suspicion fell upon the applicant, as it was revealed that while the lock securing the office is ordinarily operated with a set of three keys, the applicant allegedly produced only two when questioned, giving rise to a strong presumption that he had retained the third key with dishonest intent. Furthermore, it is alleged that the applicant had deliberately tampered with the CCTV surveillance system installed at the office premises ensuring that the cameras were disabled during the material time of the theft, thereby preventing the recording of any evidence concerning the misappropriation. During the course of the investigation, additional allegations surfaced against the applicant, leading to the invocation of Section 3 328 IPC, as the prosecution claims that he had administered a poisonous or intoxicating substance into the drinking water at the office with the intent to cause harm to the complainant's employees or other individuals. Additionally, the applicant has been charged under Section 381 IPC, as the offence in question pertains to theft committed by a clerk or servant in possession of his employer's property. Furthermore, the prosecution has invoked Section 406 IPC, alleging that the applicant, having been entrusted with the safekeeping of the complainant's property, committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating or converting it for his own use, thereby violating the trust reposed in him by his employer. Although the applicant had previously been granted bail under Section 381 IPC, the subsequent addition of non-bailable offences under Sections 328 and 406 IPC has necessitated the present application for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially the FIR was registered of the present case for offence under Section 381 IPC and the applicant was granted bail by the District and Sessions Court on 23/09/2024 and during the course of investigation offence under Section 406 and 328 IPC has been added and his bail application has been rejected by the trial court, hence the present application. He would submit that the allegation which have been levelled against the applicant that he had mixed the pesticides in the drinking water in a machine which was kept and the pesticide was found but no one was stated to have been 4 affected by drinking the said water. He would submit that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and she would submit that pesticide was found in the drinking water in the machine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and also considering the fact that no one was stated to have been affected by drinking the said water, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Rounak Dey, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till 5 disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri