1 2025:CGHC:4237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 646 of 2025 Bharat Das S/o Budhwar Das Aged About 28 Years Caste- Panika, R/o Rigniya Police Station Bango Tehsil Podi Uproda, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Smt. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 338/2024 registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sushil Kacherat, who was the Branch Manager of Sampadna Financial Limited in Manendragarh, discovered during a field audit that several of his previous employees had embezzled a substantial amount of money from the company. Specifically, Devkumar Kuren is accused of embezzling Rs. 2,00,089/- from 9 members, while Bharat Das is accused of embezzling Rs. 35,885 from 12 members. Additionally, Karan Kumar and Rajkumar Ahirwar are accused of embezzling Rs. 1,11,740/- and Rs. 3,92,286/-, respectively. The total amount alleged to have been embezzled Rs. 7,40,100/-, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that two of the co-accused persons, namely, Karan Yadav and Rajkumar Ahirwar have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 in MCRC Nos. 288 of 2025 and 553 of 2025 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the 3 present case. She further submits that the applicant the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons had embezzled total Rs.7,40,100/- from many members in the year 2021, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 17.11.2024, the fact that though the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons had embezzled total Rs.7,40,100/- from many members in the year 2021, but two of the two of the co-accused persons, namely, Karan Yadav and Rajkumar Ahirwar have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 in MCRC Nos. 288 of 2025 and 553 of 2025 and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant-Bharat Das, 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 IPC, 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:- 4 (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 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil