1 2025:CGHC:13389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 667 of 2025 Nishant Kumar S/o Late Shri Akhilesh Jha Aged About 31 Years Occupation- Assistant Manager, State Bank of India Branch Mahasamund, R/o D-02, Fourth Floor, Welcome Tower, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.03.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 240/2024 registered at Police Station : Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. According to the prosecution's story, on 21.11.2024, the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.22 10:37:45 +0530 2 complainant, Mangli Bai, submitted a written complaint to the respondent, stating that she holds a savings account at the State Bank of India, Bodla branch. On 09.09.2024, she discovered that on 30.11.2023, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was transferred to Phool Singh Meravi's account, and amounts of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 2,100/- were withdrawn using a GCC machine on 30.11.2023, and 04.12.2023, respectively. Upon receiving the complaint, an inquiry was conducted, revealing that the maker ID and checker ID of co- accused Suraj Sharma and the applicant, respectively, were used for the illegal transactions. Following the investigation, the applicant, along with other co-accused individuals, was arrested in connection with the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant was posted as Assistant Manager at the Bodla Branch of the State Bank of India from November 2022 to August 2024. When the bank received information about the misappropriation of funds, an internal inquiry was conducted, which led to the conclusion that Pratik Ukey was the sole person responsible for committing the alleged offense. He further submits that the bank has already refunded the allegedly misappropriated amount to the complainant through the said Pratik Ukey. He further submits that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the similar nature which is also listed today for hearing before this Court, except these cases the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 17.12.2024, conclusion of the 3 trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the present applicant has only one criminal antecedent of the similar nature which is also listed today for hearing before this Court, except these cases the applicant has no criminal antecedents, also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 17.12.2024, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Nishant Kumar, involved in Crime No. 240/2024 registered at Police Station : Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 5 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 Abhishek