1 2025:CGHC:54253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6858 of 2025 1 - Umakant Puri S/o Manoranjan Puri Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Devbhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Aparajita Gaikwad, Advocate S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 220/2025, registered at Police Station- Devbhog, District : Gariyaband, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2) and 316 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Sushant Kumar Sahu, D.R. M., Setting Credit Care Network Limited Company, Branch Devbhog, has lodged a written report against the applicant/accused in the concerned Police Station Devbhog alleging the applicant/accused was posted on the post of Branch Manager, Branch Devbhog from 03.01.2023 to 24.02.2025 and the 2 work of distributing and collecting loans to women group has been done by the applicant/accused from 01.05.2024 to 20.03.2025. After 20.03.2025, the applicant/accused was not posted on the post of Manager, but even thereafter, the applicant/accused collected loans from womens’ group till 20.03.2025. He further alleged that 28 names have been mentioned by the applicant stating that loan amount has been given to these women by the applicant/accused, but the loan amount has not been mentioned anywhere on the application form. Besides these 28 names, 20 other customers’ names have been written, the names of those 20 other customers have also not been mentioned by the applicant, out of 19 customers, it has been said that they will take cash, their names have also not been mentioned. Currently, all companies operate through online computers, making it unlikely that loan amounts could be repaid using their PhonePe numbers. Furthermore, these women are rural women, raising suspicion that rural women could remit loans through PhonePe. The complainant also stated in his application that this company has branches in most areas. Despite being such a large company, the fact that the accused/applicant withdrew the loan amount in cash or through PhonePe for 10 months raises suspicion. Based on the said report, aforementioned offences were registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 25.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further alleged that the applicant is not directly involved in commission of the aforesaid crime as he has not received any amount nor had obtained any benefit from any beneficiary. He submits that the applicant being the Branch Manager of the company had only disbursed his duties and provided loans to the beneficiaries and there was no other illegality committed by him. He contended that the complainant has lodged the present complaint on false 3 allegations and only to satisfy his personal issues as subsequent to the present applicant, the complainant has been appointed as Branch Manager, in the concerned Branch. He further submits that there is no evidence available against the applicant and no material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police authorities. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, as per the deponent’s knowledge, one criminal antecedent is pending adjudication. He is in jail since, 25.07.2025. Lastly, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious and prima facie disclose criminality under 318 (2) and 316 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant had allegedly tried to mislead the beneficiaries by providing them loan and thereafter, has misappropriately transferred the loan recovery amount to his own account. Further, even when he was removed from the post of Branch Manger, the applicant used to falsely recover the loan amount from the innocent persons misusing his identity as Branch Manager. The applicant had falsely recovered Rs. 6, 54,802/- from the loan holders but had not deposited in the bank account and infact have used the same for his personal benefit therefore, the applicant is directly linked to the aforementioned offence. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the risk of tampering with evidence and the prima facie material collected and the investigation is still going on, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the objector also raises objection in grant of bail to the applicant and adopts the submission of counsel for the Respondent/State. She further contended that the applicant while being Branch Manager of Setting Credit Care Network Limited Company, Branch Devbhog has misappropriated the funds of the Company and had falsely recovered Rs. 6, 54,802/- from the loan holders but had not deposited in the bank account 4 She further alleged that 28 names have been mentioned by the applicant about disbursal of loan to 28 women by the applicant/accused, but the loan amount has not been mentioned anywhere on the application form. Besides these 28 names, 20 other customers’ names have been written, the names of those 20 other customers/beneficiaries have also not been mentioned by the applicant, out of 19 customers/beneficiaries and stated that these 19 customers/beneficiaries will take cash, their names have also not been mentioned. Hence, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application. 7. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations leveled against the applicant and the material available in the F.I.R., it is observed that the applicant has been in custody since 25.07.2025, no material filed that the applicant is in possession of the funds alleged to misappropriately obtained by the applicant and further, the investigation is still going and charge-sheet is yet to be filed before the concerned Trial Court, it appears to be just and reasonable case to allow the applicant to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, applicant- Umakant Puri, involved in Crime No. 220/2025, registered at Police Station- Devbhog, District : Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2) and 316 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 5 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY