2025:CGHC:57533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8092 of 2025 Kumar Bogi S/o Jagannadham Bogi Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Rammandir Pedamariki, P.S./tahsil Parwatipuram, District Parwatipuram Manyam, Andrapradesh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Saraipali, Distt - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.. ...Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 298/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the BNS 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Dharmendra Pradhan, who is a Relationship Manager at ICICI Bank, Saraipali, filed a complaint stating that the accused/applicant, Kumar Bogi, has been VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 12:45:18 +0530 working as a Rejoined Manager at the same bank since May 2024. On 19.11.2024, during the closing time at evening, the locker balance was calculated and found to be Rs.1,05,26,131/-. The locker keys were secured by the complainant and co-employee Dhirendra Pratap, after which the locker was locked. However, on 20.11.2024, at around 6:00 PM, when the cash in the locker was rechecked, Rs. 55,00,000/- was found missing. Upon reviewing the CCTV footage, it was discovered that on 19.11.2024, at approximately 4:30 PM, the applicant took the said amount from the locker, placed it in two bags, and left the bank. Based on this, a complaint was filed against the present applicant, and an offence was registered accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The essential ingredients of Section 316(4) of the BNSS are not fulfilled in the instant case, and the prosecution story appears to be an afterthought. The applicant is 35 years old, has no previous criminal record, and continued incarceration at this stage of his life would severely affect his health, career, mental well-being, and future departmental prospects, especially when he bears the responsibility of his entire family and is unlikely to commit such an offence. During the trial, out of 20 listed witnesses, only 2 have been examined till 02.09.2025, demonstrating an inordinate delay, and further investigation is not required. The offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, and in terms of Section 480(6) of the BNSS, when a non-bailable offence triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence, the accused is entitled to regular bail, which squarely applies here since the evidence was first scheduled on 07.04.2025 and only 2 witnesses have been examined thereafter. There is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 316(5) of the BNSS, further strengthening the applicant’s claim for bail. The applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of CCTV footage, whereas the keys and operational access remained with Dharmendra Pradhan and Dhirendra Pradhan, both Relationship Managers. Even as per the complainant, the closing balance on 19.11.2024 was Rs.1,05,26,131/-, and the allegation that the applicant withdrew Rs. 55 lakhs on the same day is contradicted by their own failure to check the balance the following morning before conducting financial transactions, and the applicant is in jail since 24.12.2024, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, and further, as per the order sheet of the trial Court, though charges have been framed, no witnesses have been examined till date, and the applicant has no criminal antecedent, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Kumar Bogi, involved in Crime No. 298/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the BNS 2023, be released on bail on 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 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 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