SACHIN KUMAR MISHRA @ KAPIL MISHRA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
MCRC/9264/2025 · 2025-11-17
Smt Rajani Dubey
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58697 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58697 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:56090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9264 of 2025 Sachin Kumar Mishra @ Kapil Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Bhagwan Das Mishra, R/o Ward No. 3, Near Bade Jain Temple, Tal Darwaja, P.S. Kotwali, District Tikamgarh (Madhya Pradesh) ---- Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Through – Head of Branch C.B.I., A.C.B. Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Standing Counsel. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board 18 /11/2025
1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.
2 RC1242017A0005/17 registered at Police Station – Central Bureau of Investigation Through Head of Branch C.B.I., A.C.B., Branch Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 409 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (C) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The present applicant along with co-accused Bhartendu Kumar Jha has allegedly misappropriated Rs.78,14,292/- belonging to Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Malhar, Bilaspur (C.G.). The present applicant was working as U.D.C. in the said school.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant after getting regular bail by this Court, was regularly attending the trial proceedings but as the applicant suffered heart attack in the year 2022 and had undergone surgery and stent was implanted, yet again there was symptom of heart pain, therefore, the applicant was under medical treatment and the doctor advised him for complete bed rest, therefore, the applicant unintentionally and due to unavoidable circumstances failed to mark his presence on 30.10.2025, as such, due to bail jump the bail granted to the applicant was cancelled. Learned counsel further submits
3 that the applicant has fully co-operated in the trial proceedings, as on date 37 witnesses have been examined but the learned Trial Court erred in cancelling the bail of the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that the application filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. for dispensing the personal appearance for 30.10.2025 on medical illness was dismissed without considering the genuineness of the matter. Therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/CBI opposing the bail application submits that it is not a simple case of bail jump as portrayed by the applicant. He also submits that the charge against the applicant was filed on 12.03.2019 in his absence and later on, in order to ensure the presence of the applicant, an
order was passed on 05.03.2021 for proceeding under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and after his surrender on 10.06.2021, the applicant was sent to custody. The non appearance of the applicant is not bona-fide and his entire conduct is suspected, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 18.08.2021 passed in MCRC No.4472/2021 and further considering the medical documents submitted by the applicant, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court concerned on each and every date given to him by the said Court.
8. It is made clear that if any adjournment is sought by the applicant during cross-examination of the witnesses, the bail granted to the applicant shall stands automatically cancelled. The learned Trial Court would be at liberty to impose any other conditions, as it deems fit. Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.11.18 16:33:38 +0530