1 2025:CGHC:58874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9905 of 2025 Anil Vaidya S/o Late S.N. Vaidya Aged About 65 Years R/o Bajiraopara, P.S. Jutmil Raigarh, Tehsil- Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 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. 251/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in the year 2015, a notice inviting tender was issued for the purchase of Chlorine Balls. An agreement was executed with U.D. Enterprises, and a supply order was issued by the Municipal Corporation ofÏce in the same year. The main allegation ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.05 18:28:59 +0530 2 levelled against the applicant is that, in his capacity as the accountant of the aforesaid committee, he failed to deduct 2% VAT amounting to Rs. 1,72,000/-, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant was working as a Fire OfÏcer under the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, and that the deduction of 2% Commercial Tax was not within the domain of the applicant. Such deductions are part of the ofÏcial procedure, and even if the deduction had not been made, a separate forum is available under the Commercial Tax Act for redressal. He further submits that the deduction of 5% security amount was also not within the applicant’s domain. No criminality has been committed by the applicant, and false allegations have been levelled against him. It is submitted that a total of four crimes have been registered against the applicant, out of which he has already been granted anticipatory bail in two cases, vide MCRCA No. 533/2016 in Crime No. 248/2016 and MCRCA No. 535/2016 in Crime No. 247/2016. He further submits that the applicant was serving as a Fire OfÏcer at the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, and that the enquiry conducted against him was liable to be dealt with through departmental action, which itself shows that no offence has been committed by the applicant. Moreover, no departmental enquiry has been initiated against him, and the applicant has retired on 31.10.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant is already facing trial in the other two cases, i.e., Crime No. 248/2016 and Crime No. 247/2016, and he has been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court. However, the police authorities did not file the charge sheet against the applicant in time, and subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him. The 3 applicant, being aggrieved by the FIR, preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 291/2017 before this Hon’ble Court, and vide order dated 22.08.2017, this Hon’ble Court granted an interim order. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.05.2023, this Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ petition while extending the interim order for one week. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3979/2017, M.Cr.C. No. 3984/2017, M.Cr.C. No. 5483/2017, and M.Cr.C. No. 5486/2017. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from several medical ailments, including infections in both lungs, respiratory failure, impaired kidney function, and a skin infection in his leg. The applicant is of advanced age, i.e., 65 years, and has been languishing in jail since 11.11.2025. 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 applicant and submits that in the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the present matter pertains to the year 2016, and further that the allegation against the applicant is that, in his capacity as the accountant of the aforesaid committee, he failed to deduct 2% VAT amounting to Rs. 1,72,000/-, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer and considering also that although the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder, he is an elderly person aged about 65 years and has been facing criminal trial since 2016, and that he has been languishing in jail since 11.11.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is 4 entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Anil Vaidya, involved in Crime No. 251/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be released on bail on her furnishing 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 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, 5 (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