1 2025:CGHC:16472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2767 of 2025 Sanat Kumar Sori S/o Jeevrakhan Sori Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mulleguda, Police Station- Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgah ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, SHO Gurur (Correctly Mentioned As Per Chargesheet) District Balod, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/04/2025 1 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2 The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 195/2024, registered at Police Station – Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 2 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant Bhupendra Kumar Mandavi has lodged written report before police station that the present applicant was employed as daily wager in the office of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit since 2020 to 2024 and at that time he was embezzled Rs. 07,07,975.10/- and therefore the department has conducted enquiry and Investigation Officer were appointed and they submit their report and stated that applicant has embezzled total Rs.07,07,975.10/- and thereafter police has taken memorandum and statement of the witness and in the memorandum the present applicant has stated that he has kept Rs. 2,30,000/- and submitted 50,000/- to the Samiti and rest of the amount has been spent on personal expenses, thereafter police has seized Rs. 2,30,000/- from the applicant and arrested the applicant. 4 It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant was working as watchman in the office of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit and therefore this much amount has not embezzled by the present applicant. He further submits that the police officials has threatened the present applicant and therefore he has given his hard earned money to the police officials. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 03.12.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5 On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that being a employee of Adim Jati 3 Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, the applicant has embezzled a total of Rs. 7,07,975.10/-. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the present applicant was only a watchman in the Office of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 03.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8 Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Sanat Kumar Sori, involved in Crime No. 195/2024, registered at Police Station – Gurur, District - Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 4 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 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 Preeti