1 2025:CGHC:16477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2603 of 2025 Geeta Ram Sahu S/o Gorelal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram - Koida, Thana - Lavan, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Thana - Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/2024 registered at Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the applicant/accused along KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 with other co-accused was working as Agent/Field worker at Spandana Spurti Financial Limited, Bhilai. The applicant was responsible for recovering money from the bank’s customers as the instructions of his superiors. However, the bank ofÏcials alleged that the applicant/accused misappropriated Rs. 3,01,036/-. Thereafter, an FIR bearing No. 144/2024 for offence under Sections 420, 409/34 of IPC was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Durg and applicant was arrested and the police took the matter for further investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he is the only bread earner of the family. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant has not been indulged in any kind of illegal activity. He further submits that the applicant has already left his job from the complainant bank without any dues and the FIR was registered under conspiracy and malafide intention. He also submits that the co-accused namely Ritesh Kumar Banjare has already been granted bail by this Court being MCRC No. 1647/2025, vide order dated 12.03.2025 therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the bail application of the co-accused namely Ritesh Kumar Banjare, which was allowed by this Court only on the ground that the co-accused’s younger brother met with an accident and died so that this Court had granted bail to the co-accused to perform the 3 last rites for his brother however, looking to the gravity and seriousness of this case, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 26.12.2024 and further the fact that the co-accused namely Ritesh Kumar Banjare has already been granted bail by this Court being MCRC No. 1647/2025 vide order dated 12.03.2025 and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Let the applicant – Geeta Ram Sahu, involved in Crime No. 144/2024 registered at Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of IPC, 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. 4 (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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal