1 2025:CGHC:59441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10020 of 2025 Teej Kumar Mandavi S/o Shri Dasru Gond Aged About 46 Years R/o Bakhtavar Chawl, Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 305/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 316(5) of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, Pramila Jureshia, Posted as Deputy Forest Ranger lodged a report before the Police Station City Kotwali alleging that tendu leaves of Lot No. 64, Forest Division Bijapur, and Bhairamgarh were stored in Gurukripa Godown, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 GE Road, Rajnandgaon, by buyer/co accused Sudhir Manek, from May 26, 2022, to June 29, 2022. After storage, the godown was locked with two keys one with the buyer Sudhir Manek and the other with the Chief Warehouse In charge. However, the purchase agreement was cancelled due to non-payment of the purchase amount by Sudhir Manek within the stipulated time. Upon cancellation, the keys were returned to the Chief Warehouse In charge. On April 24, 2023, a complaint was made by Rajesh Chowthwani, alleging that good quality tendu leaves from the year 2022 had been removed and replaced with old, poor-quality leaves. The case diary includes an investigation report from the Assistant Forest Conservator, which reveals that the accused, along with others, committed a criminal act causing loss to the government. According to the investigation report, a shortage of 2669 sacks worth Rs. 93,34,487 was found. On the basis of said report arrested the present applicant. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge- sheet has not been filed in this case. It is further submitted that a total of 6 co-accused persons have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.07.2025, 22.07.2025, 07.08.2025, 20.08.2025, 14.08.2025, and 17.07.2025, passed in MCRCA Nos. 1010/2025, 1077/2025, 1187/2025, 1264/2025, 1240/2025 and 1045/2025. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in this case and the investigation of the matter is on progress, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that a total of 6 co-accused persons have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.07.2025, 22.07.2025, 07.08.2025, 20.08.2025, 14.08.2025, and 17.07.2025, passed in MCRCA Nos. 1010/2025, 1077/2025, 1187/2025, 1264/2025, 1240/2025 and 1045/2025, charge-sheet has not been filed against the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 11.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Teej Kumar Mandavi, involved in Crime No. 305/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 316(5) of the BNS, 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 treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 4 (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 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 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. 8. Office 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 Rajshekhar