1 2025:CGHC:55874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9242 of 2025 Krishna Kumar Kariyare S/o Ramji Kariyare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Masturi, Police Station - Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Masturi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.11.2025 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. 449/2025 registered at Police Station : Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 320, 336, 338, 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.07.2025, the Branch Manager of the Cooperative Bank, Masturi, lodged a written complaint before Police Station - Masturi stating that, during the procurement year 2024–25, the present applicant Krishna Kumar Kariyare and one ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.18 11:36:23 +0530 2 Sukhsagar Banjare committed embezzlement during the procurement of paddy at Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Masturi, Registration No. 169 of Sub-Centre, Risda. During the said period, the present applicant was holding the post of In-charge for paddy procurement, and one Sukhsagar Jangde was serving as the Computer Operator. It was further stated that the applicant and the co-accused embezzled 1763.77 quintals of paddy from the said centre. After receiving the complaint, the concerned police arrested the present applicant on 15.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is an admitted fact that, at the time of the alleged incident, the present applicant was the In- charge of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Masturi and Sub-Centre, Risda, and that he purchased and sold paddy strictly in accordance with the directions of the State Government. It is also admitted that, prior to the commencement of procurement, a tri-party agreement was executed between the applicant’s society, the bank, and the marketing federation, and all parties were required to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. He further submits that Clause 13 of the tri-party agreement contains the arbitration mechanism. It provides that any dispute arising during the course of procurement or sale of paddy shall be decided by the concerned Collector under the arbitration clause, and that any aggrieved party may prefer an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the Collector’s order. He also submits that during the procurement period, upon noticing certain irregularities, the applicant immediately informed the higher authorities, specifically stating that due to non-compliance with the tri-party agreement by other ofÏcials, a shortage of paddy had occurred. He requested a detailed enquiry and action against the responsible persons. Instead of conducting a proper 3 enquiry, the authorities exerted pressure on the applicant to lodge an FIR against himself if the shortage was not adjusted. He submits when the authorities continued to compel the applicant to adjust the shortage, he submitted another application on 10.07.2025 before the Deputy Registrar, Bilaspur. He clarified that the procurement year commenced on 01.11.2024, while he assumed charge only on 20.12.2024 from one Lakhan Singh, who had already procured approximately 1400 quintals of paddy before handing over charge due to severe illness. Without any proper enquiry, the entire shortage for the whole procurement year was being attributed to the applicant. He, therefore, requested an impartial enquiry into the shortage. He submits that as per the complaint, the alleged embezzlement was committed by the applicant (In-charge) and co-accused Sukhsagar Jangde (Computer Operator). However, the documentary record clearly shows that the applicant took over charge on 20.12.2024, whereas co-accused Sukhsagar Jangde was functioning in the procurement process from the beginning of the procurement year 2024-25. Therefore, if any shortage or irregularity occurred during the initial period, the primary liability would fall upon the co-accused, not the applicant. He also submits that the co-accused, namely Sukh Sagar Jangde, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1283 of 2025, and that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 15.07.2025. As the conclusion of the trial may take some time, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the 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 and also endorse the submission made by learned counsel, for the applicant that 4 the present applicant has no criminal antecedent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Sukh Sagar Jangde, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1283 of 2025, as well as the fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, and further considering that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 15.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Krishna Kumar Kariyare, involved in Crime No. 449/2025 registered at Police Station : Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 320, 336, 338, 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 sufÏcient cause, 5 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 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