1 / 5 2025:CGHC:48999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7731 of 2025 Ilahi Mohhammad Qureshi S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged About 51 Years R/o Vill- Baloda, P.S. And Tah. Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. 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. 233/2025 registered at Police Station – Akaltara District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution case, on the written complaint of Himanshu Gupta, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Akaltara, a criminal VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.25 11:01:45 +0530 2 / 5 case was registered against the present applicant and co-accused Smt. Ramin Bai. It is alleged that on the complaint of former District Panchayat Member, Pradeep Kumar Soni, regarding financial irregularities in Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar during the financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24, a four-member inquiry committee was constituted. The said committee submitted its report alleging that the then Sarpanch, Smt. Ramin Bai, and the Secretary, Ilahi Mohammad Qureshi (present applicant), misused and embezzled funds of Rs. 25,13,528/- withdrawn under the 15th Finance Commission, without proper resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It is further alleged that in the Panchayat resolution, the work for which the said amount was withdrawn had not been mentioned. On the basis of the said inquiry report, Police Station Akaltara registered Crime No. 233/2025 against the applicant and the co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, and 34 IPC, arrested them on 10.06.2025, and after due investigation, filed a charge-sheet on 26.08.2025 before the competent Court. 3. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence only on account of his posting as Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, whereas the Secretary has no independent authority to utilize or withdraw funds of the Gram Panchayat without the approval and proposal of the elected office bearers. The inquiry team has also not found any allegation that the applicant misappropriated or used the Panchayat funds for his personal benefit. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), being the competent authority for Panchayat affairs, has already passed an order dated 13.12.2024 suspending the co-accused Sarpanch, Smt. Ramin Bai, 3 / 5 from her post, thereby clearly indicating that the responsibility for the alleged embezzlement lay with her. Moreover, the inquiry committee conducted the proceedings without affording the applicant any opportunity of hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice. The applicant, being an Ex-Army personnel, has always discharged his duties with utmost honesty and integrity, and his implication in the present case is the result of political rivalry between two groups. It is pertinent to mention that the main accused Smt. Ramin Bai has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7430 of 2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), having deep roots in society, and is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by any condition or direction that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. The applicant further reserves his right to raise any other ground at the time of arguments, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and applicant has two criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 / 5 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the co-accused person, namely, Ramin Bai has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7430 of 2025 vide order dated 16.09.2025. Also considering the fact that the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and he has been in jail since 10.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Ilahi Mohhammad Qureshi, involved in Crime No. 233/2025 registered at Police Station – Akaltara District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, and 34 the Indian Penal Code (IPC)., be released on bail on his 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 5 / 5 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav