1 2025:CGHC:14595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2406 of 2025 1 - Gaurishankar Sen S/o Kanahiyya Lal Sen Aged About 25 Years R/o. Ward No. 11, Nayapara Near New Daldali Talab, Mahasamund, Ps, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Tukesh Kumar S/o. Shobharam Diwan Aged About 34 Years R/o. Village Dokrapali, Ps Tendukona, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Laxminarayan Sahu S/o Ishwari Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o. Village Paraskol, Ps, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.03.2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 588/2024 registered at Police Station Mahasamund District - KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 316, 316(4), 318(3), 318(4), 3(5), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant has lodged the FIR stating that when he inspected the liquor shop on 17.12.2024 and on 19.12.2024, the liquors amounting to Rs. 36,90,790/- found missing and while physical verification, it appears that the employees of Eagle Hunter Solution Limited have embezzled the liquor. Hence, the present applicants being the employees, were made accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. There is no direct or indirect involvement of the applicants in the present case. He further submits that the essential ingredients of Section 318(4) of BNS is not being fulfilled in the instant case. The applicant has not having any business with these forgery. They are illiterate persons and their role itself is suspicious in the entire charge-sheet. The conduct of the prosecution is doubtful and further submits that it is impossible to embezzle that much amount especially when the liquor was sold through bar code and when the audit is to be done by the government authorities once or twice in a month. The purpose of having audit the account is to cross verify the sale and purchase of liquor. When the Audit Report was sought for before the Authorities through Right to Information Act, 2005, the authorities by one or the other reasons have rejected the applications. He also submits that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 374/2025, vide 3 order dated 18.03.2025. Accordingly, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submit that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 374/2025, vide order dated 18.03.2025, further the applicants in connivance with the other employees have embezzled the huge amount of Rs. 36,90,790/- therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants since 21.12.2024 and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants have no previous criminal antecedent and 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 applicants. 7. Let the Applicants – Gaurishankar Sen, Tukesh Kumar and Laxminarayan Sahu involved in Crime No. 588/2024 registered at Police Station Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 316, 316(4), 318(3), 318(4), 3(5), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the 4 Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed 5 against them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce 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