1 2025:CGHC:3733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 584 of 2025 Suraj Paikara S/o Ramjeet Palkara Aged About 28 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village- Tomo, Chowki - Chendra P.S.- Jhilmili, District- Surajpur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, Police Chowki - Chendra P.S. Jhilmili, (Bhaiyathan) District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2024, registered at Police Chowki – Chendra, Police Station -Jhilmili, (Bhaiyathan) District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that that a complaint made by the Food PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.22 11:05:02 +0530 2 Inspector Surendra Kurre that a fair price shop which was run by Smt. SadhnaPaikara, Ram Kailash Paikara and the present applicant Suraj Paikara have commited some embezzlement with stock of Rice worth Rs. 9,06,759/-, Channa worth 3,31,400/-, Salt worth Rs. 49,225 and Sugar worth 94,920 etc. which in total amount to Rs. 13,82,304/- and thus based on the said inspection report the above said offence have been registered against the accused. Hence, this bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the present applicant has no role to play in the above said embezzlement and is wrongly been framed in the said offence. He also submits that co-accused person, namely, Sadhna Paikra and Ram Kailash Paikra have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 and 24.10.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1115 of 2024 and 1245/2024 respectively. He also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He further submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons operate a Fair Price Shop in Surajpur and embezzled food grains worth Rs. 13,82,304/-. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature 3 and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that that co-accused person, namely, Sadhna Paikra and Ram Kailash Paikra have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 and 24.10.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1115 of 2024 and 1245/2024 respectively, further the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Suraj Paikara, involved in Crime No. 86/2024, registered at Police Chowki – Chendra, Police Station -Jhilmili, (Bhaiyathan) District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 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. (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 4 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti