1 / 3 2025:CGHC:16170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2430 of 202 5 • Suraj Sahu S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Indira Colony Beside Nagar Palika Bhawan, Balodabazar, Dist - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. Palari, Dist. - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judg e ORDER ON BOARD 07/04/2025 1. Applicant has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 488/2022 registered at Police Station – Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 408, 409 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant Prahlad Kumar Patel (Branch Manager of District Co-operative Central Bank Maryadit, Raipur, C.G., Branch Vatgan) lodged a complaint on 31.08.2022 alleging that the applicant who was working as Assistant Accountant Officer in the said bank has embezzled a total amount of Rs. 3,23,16,975.59/- between 05.09.2018 to 01.08.2022 by manipulating deposits and withdrawals in the accounts of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 account holders of the concerned bank. Based on the report, aforementioned offence was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 08.09.2022. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. It is contended that applicant was working as Assistant Accountant and he was not in authorized position to deposit or withdraw any amount from the accounts of accounts holders. A sole bank official cannot be held liable for any embezzlement as the transaction of amount, either deposit or withdraw, has to undergo various verification process done by bank officials and the same has collective responsibility. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no incriminating material available in the charge-sheet against applicant to show that the applicant has embezzled any amount. It is contended that the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court on 14.12.2022 in MCRC Nos. 9698/2022, 9994/2022 and 9731/2022. Applicant is in jail since 08.09.2022. Trial is likely to take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that there are serious allegations of embezzlement of huge amount of ₹ 3,23,16,975.59/- from the account holders of the bank. Applicant in conspiracy with other co-accused persons whose accounts were used for routing the amount to the account of applicant has committed embezzlement of public money, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicant with regard to grant of bail to co-accused persons. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that 3 / 3 the co-accused persons have already granted bail by this Court on 14.12.2022, charge-sheet has already been filed and the period of detention of applicant since 08.09.2022, trial may take some time to conclude, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) 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. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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. (d) 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 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/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE