1 2025:CGHC:59282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1920 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 45 Years R/o- Sector 3, Housing Board Colony, Saddu, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Devendra Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0211/2025 registered at Police Station – Devendra Nagar District –Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that, a written complaint filed by the Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.06 12:09:45 +0530 2 Commission, Raipur, against the applicant, who held the position of Accounts In charge at the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, between 07/09/2017 and 05/01/2018. During the said period, an amount of Rs. 3,98,553/ was withdrawn from the official account in the context of fraud committed by embezzling the amount by withdrawing it into his account. Thereby a case under sections 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant under crime number 0211/2025 and the matter is under investigation. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further states that he served as Assistant Grade-III (Accountant) in the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from 2000 to 2018 and was entrusted only with limited clerical duties under the supervision of senior officers, whereas all financial transactions of the Commission, including operation of the bank account and authorization of withdrawals, were exclusively handled by the Registrar; therefore, the allegation of misappropriation against him is misconceived. It is further submitted that for the same period (2016– 2018), earlier FIRs Crime No. 0050/2021 and Crime No. 192/2022 were registered, despite the fact that the applicant had already deposited the disputed amount, and in both cases, the Hon’ble High Court granted relief and stayed departmental recovery proceedings. Notwithstanding these orders, a third FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly nine years, although departmental audits found no financial irregularity. The present FIR is based on an ex-parte inquiry conducted without granting the applicant any opportunity of 3 hearing, and even the inquiry reports are contradictory and reflect that no amount could be deposited or withdrawn without the signatures of the Accounts Officer, Superintendent and Registrar, thereby making it impossible to attribute individual liability to the applicant. The applicant further submits that he has already been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 7976 of 2022 in Crime No. 50/2021 vide order dated 21.09.2025, and anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 982/2024 vide order dated 02.09.2024. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, is ready to abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present FIR relates to the same period for which earlier FIRs were lodged, in which the applicant has already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. The departmental audits for the relevant years did not reveal any embezzlement, and further departmental proceedings have been stayed in WPS Nos. 2513/2025 and WPS No. 6883/2025. The present FIR has been filed after an unexplained delay of nearly nine years, and the inquiry was conducted ex parte without giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Vinod Kumar Sahu, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav