1 2025:CGHC:39969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5393 of 2025 Deepak Uikey S/o Shriram Uikey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bagharra, Police Station Lormi, Dist. Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Sakti (C.G.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 107/2025, registered at Police Station - Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 201 of the IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, as per F.I.R. is that the complainant sub-divisional inspector post office Sakti registered an FIR stating that the present applicant was posted as postmaster VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.11 14:41:42 +0530 2 (Dakpal) from 23.12.2013 to 08.04.2021. During this period, as postmaster, he received money for depositing from 57 account holders. He did not deposit the money received by the account holders and on paper, he fabricated the documents. The office document has been kept by him. As per the FIR, he has embezzled a total amount of Rs.7,34,908 from 57 account holders. 3. The applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated. As per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred between 23.12.2013 and 08.04.2021, yet the FIR was lodged only on 03.04.2025, with no explanation for the inordinate delay of 12 years from the first date and 4 years from the last date of the incident. Such delay indicates false implication, possibly to cover up embezzlement by other officials, making the applicants scapegoats. The applicant, being government employees, is already facing departmental proceedings alongside criminal action, despite the absence of any internal auditor report. He is permanent residents with family and property in their village, eliminating any risk of absconding. In custody since 29.04.2025, he are ready to furnish adequate sureties and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, while reserving the right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing, Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and he has been in jail since 29.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Deepak Uikey, involved in Crime No. 107/2025, registered at Police Station - Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 406, 201 of the IPC, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 him presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the 4 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav