1 2025:CGHC:40220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6299 of 2025 Dilip Bardiya S/o Late Prem Raj Bardiya Aged About 45 Years R/o Veer Narayan Singh Ward No. 11, Geedam, Tehsil- Geedam, District Dantewada C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer, Police Station- Narayanpur, District Narayanpur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/2025, registered at Police Station : Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Vinirdisht Bhrashtachar Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.06.2025, the complainant, Loknath Patel, Chief Executive O.cer, Janpad Panchayat, Narayanpur, lodged a written complaint with the police stating that under the B.S.P. C.S.R. Scheme, administrative approval was granted for the construction of 12 Smart Anganwadis in 12 approved villages at the rate of Rs.15.00 lakh per Anganwadi, totaling Rs.180.00 lakh. For execution of the said work, M/s Jainam Construction, Bazar Para, Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.), was paid the Crst installment of Rs.85,00,000 on 14.07.2022 and the second installment of Rs.54,00,000 on 31.03.2023, making a total payment of Rs.1,39,00,000. For monitoring these works, a district- level inspection committee was constituted by the district o.ce, and as per its report, work worth only Rs.34,68,514 had been carried out in various Anganwadis. It was therefore alleged that the agency, M/s Jainam Construction, Bazar Para, Geedam, District Dantewada proprietor Nikhil Jain and assistant Yogendra Sahu had misappropriated Rs.1,04,31,486, and accordingly, the complainant prayed for registration of an FIR against the said persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the dispute, if any, pertains to alleged non-compliance with the terms of the contract, and even assuming such non-compliance, the State was at liberty to cancel the contract, but lodging an FIR in the present matter demonstrates misuse of the process of law. He submits that the two co-accused, both employees of the Applicant, one of whom is su<ering from 3 cancer, have already been granted bail by the trial Court. He further submits that the o<ence under Section 4 of the Act of 1982 is bailable, and under Section 420 IPC the maximum punishment is seven years or less, thereby mandating compliance with Section 35(3) of the BNSS (earlier Section 41-A CrPC) as clariCed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. However, the Investigating O.cer failed to issue the requisite notice, and the arrest was made in contravention of Section 35(1)(b) without recording or communicating reasons. It is also submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out, as at no stage did the contracting Crm have any intention to cheat or dishonestly induce delivery of property, and the record shows that M/s Jainam Construction has always been ready and willing to complete any pending or rectiCcation work. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant and submits that the investigation in the present matter is still pending and the charge-sheet has not yet been Cled. He submits that substantial payments were released to the Applicant for execution of the sanctioned work under the B.S.P. C.S.R. Scheme; however, despite repeated reminders and opportunities, the Applicant failed to complete the construction of the Smart Anganwadis as per the approved plan and timeline. It is further submitted that the work site falls within a 4 sensitive and naxalite-a<ected area, and the non-completion of the project has resulted in not only Cnancial loss to the State but also deprivation of essential public facilities to the targeted beneCciaries. Learned State counsel contends that the inspection report of the district-level committee clearly establishes that only a fraction of the work has been carried out, while a substantial portion of the funds has been misappropriated, thereby attracting the o<ences alleged. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute between the parties arises out of an alleged non-compliance with the terms and conditions of a contract, and the same is essentially of a civil nature. It is also to be noted that the two co-accused persons, who were employees of the Applicant and against whom similar allegations have been made, have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court, one of them being a cancer patient. In view of the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the fact that the contractual dispute does not prima facie disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the o<ence under Section 420 IPC, further the applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Dilip Bardiya, involved in Crime No. 54/2025, registered at Police Station : Narayanpur, District Narayanpur 5 (C.G.) for the o<ence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Chhattisgarh Vinirdisht Bhrashtachar Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall Cle an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates Cxed 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 Cxed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without su.cient 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 her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date Cxed 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, 6 before the trial court on the dates Cxed 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 su.cient 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. O.ce is directed to provide a certiCed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan