1 2025:CGHC:61857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10387 of 2025 Trilokchandra Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o- Maldhakka Road, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicat(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/12/2025 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. 251/2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) of IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the years 2015– 2016, Crime No. 251/2016 was registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the then Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Pramod Shukla, other municipal officers/employees, and the supplier firm. The prosecution alleges that all the accused persons, in a pre-planned criminal conspiracy, misused their official positions and committed cheating and dishonesty in the procurement of chlorine tablets meant for water purification by violating the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules. It is alleged that income tax and VAT were not deducted, materials were purchased at rates higher than MRP, entries were falsely made in the stock register without actual receipt of the material, and payment of approximately Rs. 18,85,075/- was released, thereby causing financial loss to the Government. The present applicant/accused, Trilokchandra Sharma, who was posted as Water Filter In-charge at the relevant time, is alleged to have actively participated in the said irregularities. After completion of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 11.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the bail application. 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 the identically situated co-accused, namely, Anil Vaidya has already been granted bail by 3 this Court vide order dated 04.12.2025 in MCRC No.9905 of 2025. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case and in case of co-accused also charge-sheet has not been filed, 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 not been filed in the present case and in the case of co-accused also, who granted bail by this Court. He further submits that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Water Filter In-charge, while the non-deduction of 2% VAT amounting to Rs. 1,72,000/- was attributed to the co-accused and is alleged to have actively participated in the said irregularities alongwith the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. the applicant was posted as Water Filter In-charge,, who was working as an accountant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 11.11.2025, the fact that though at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Water Filter In-charge, while the non- deduction of 2% VAT amounting to Rs. 1,72,000/- was attributed 4 to the co-accused and is alleged to have actively participated in the said irregularities alongwith the co-accused, further charge- sheet has not been filed in the present case, but considering the fact that in the case of co-accused, namely, Anil Vaidya also, charge-sheet has not been filed and has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2025 in MCRC No.9905 of 2025, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant-Trilokchandra Sharma, involved in Crime No. 251/2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) of IPC and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption 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 sufficient 5 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. 10. Office 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