1 2025:CGHC:4134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8012 of 2024 Ramdas Banjare S/o Chaitram Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Louda, Police Station And Tehsil - Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Polie Station - Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2025 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. 120/2024, registered at Police Station : Lalpur, District Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant is a supervisor at the paddy procurement center of Gram Gurvaindubri. A letter was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Cooperative RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.23 16:48:56 +0530 2 Society, District Mungeli, directing the lodging of an FIR against the applicant. Accordingly, the complainant prepared a written complaint alleging that since 2018, he has been working as a supervisor at the District Co-operative Central Bank, Kanteli, overseeing the paddy procurement center at Gurvaindubri. As per the aforementioned letter, it was alleged that the salesman (present applicant) procured a total of 33,972 quintals of paddy during 2023 and 2024 and delivered 47,773.60 quintals. Based on calculations, there should have been approximately 8,198.40 quintals of paddy in stock. However, during verification, only 6,103.20 quintals were found, leaving 2,095.50 quintals unaccounted for. It is alleged that the applicant has committed criminal breach of trust under these circumstances. Based on the aforementioned facts, an offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant, and he has been arrested in connection with the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that the applicant, posted at Seva Sahkari Samiti, Ladda, was temporarily assigned to the paddy procurement center at Gurvaindubri from November 1, 2023. Due to negligence by other ofÏcers, proper quantities of paddy were not lifted, and on May 5, 2024, a DO was issued to Adarsh Rice Mill, Abhanpur. The applicant arranged transportation, but the rice mill refused to issue a gate pass, preferring its own transport. The Assistant Registrar and others allegedly abused and threatened the applicant, accusing him of misusing the paddy. The applicant filed 3 complaints with the Collector and police, highlighting irregularities and mismanagement by others. Verification overlooked damaged paddy bags, and an FIR was filed without proper inspection. The applicant has submitted documents showing no irregularities on his part and denies allegations of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The FIR appears baseless, filed on suspicion without verification, and aimed at harassing the applicant. He further submits that there is one pending criminal antecedent against applicant which is going under trial. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 21.10.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the salesman (present applicant) procured a total of 33,972 quintals of paddy during 2023 and 2024 and delivered 47,773.60 quintals. Based on calculations, there should have been approximately 8,198.40 quintals of paddy in stock. However, during verification, only 6,103.20 quintals were found, leaving 2,095.50 quintals unaccounted for. It is alleged that the applicant has committed criminal breach of trust under these circumstances. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent of the year 2022 which is pending and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 21.10.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Karan Yadav, involved in Crime No. 338/2024, registered at Police Station : Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 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 5 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. 8. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan