1 2025:CGHC:1420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8988 of 2024 Lukesh Kumar Chaturvedani S/o Shri Chaituram Chaturvedani Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Garola, Police Staiton Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mainpur, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. AG. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. Firs bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 08.11.2024 in MCRC No.7127/2024. 2. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.54/2024, registered at PS -Mainpur, District -Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per case of the prosecution, present applicant alongwith other co- accused persons by using forged documents and bearer cheques have illegally withdrawn Rs.3,13,43,971/ from the treasury of the Community 2 Health Centre, Mainpur in the financial year 2016-17 & 2019-20. Based upon report, aforementioned crime/offence has been registered against the applicant. s 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is no any specific evidence/material available to show that this applicant is involved in the alleged offence/embezzlement. Co- accused persons are the main accused in this case as nowhere name of the present applicant is mentioned in the enquiry report. There is no any other criminal antecedents against the applicant. Conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is specific allegation against the applicant of committing the aforesaid offence/crim, hence, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the enquiry report and other related documents/evidence which shows the role/involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence/embezzlement, further considering that first bail application was dismissed on merits and there is no substantial change in the circumstance of this case, I am not inclined to allow this second bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.