1 2025:CGHC:6542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 195 of 2025 Uday Bhaskar S/o Late Shri Raman Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sukma District Sukma (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Chintagufa, District Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 05/2024, registered at Police Station – Chintagufa, District – Sukma (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.06 17:46:11 +0530 2 2. The prosecution's story is that the applicant, while serving as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Duled, withheld and failed to disburse two years' worth of pensions to pensioners and wages to laborers working on the construction of four ponds in Village Minapa. The applicant allegedly withdrew funds from the 14th and 15th Finance Plans without authorization and embezzled Rs. 47,83,528/-. The applicant previously served as Gram Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayats Kamaram, Kondasawli, and Duled in District Sukma. However, the applicant was terminated via an order dated 30.11.2023, by the Chief Executive OfÏcer of Zila Panchayat, Sukma, based on an inquiry marred by procedural and evidentiary flaws. Notably, the termination order directed the lodging of criminal complaints against the applicant, leading to the current FIR. Consequently, FIR No. 05/2024 was registered on 24.11.2024, at Police Station Chintagufa under Sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that other allegations in the enquiry that formed the basis of the termination order, such as ration mismanagement, fall outside the applicant's duties as a Gram Panchayat Secretary. Furthermore, no Food Department ofÏcial was examined, and no evidence of wrongdoing was established during the enquiry. Moreover, it is crucial to the applicant's case that some of the Panch(s), namely Rajendra Kumar Nag and Ratan Singh Kashyap, who were made witnesses in the said enquiry, have supported the applicant's contentions on 3 afÏdavit, contrary to what they stated in the enquiry. They afÏrmed that while the applicant was posted as Panchayat Secretary, all types of pension amounts were duly disbursed to the beneficiaries on time, and the wages of workers engaged in the construction of Nistari Pond were duly paid on time, with no wages pending. They further contended that their signatures were taken on a blank paper without their knowledge by the enquiry ofÏcer. Aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal before the Ld. Court of Commissioner, Bastar Division, registered as Case No. 20231295010019/B/121/23-24. However, the Ld. Commissioner Court summarily dismissed the appeal on 08.07.2024. Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision application along with a stay application on 29.08.2024, before the Chief Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, which is still pending till date. He also submits that the entire departmental enquiry is illegal and flawed, resulting in his false implication in the present case. Pending the revision of the termination order and his arrest will hinder his cooperation and compliance with the revision proceedings. He further contended that in the present case there is no necessity of arrest. The revsion proceedings is still pending regarding the misappropriation and misconduct as alleged in the pesent and the applicant is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation, and his costodial interrogation is neither required nor justified. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that 02 FIRs were registered against the applicant in the same incident, involving embezzlement of over Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. In the present FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that, while serving as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Duled, he withheld and failed to disburse two years' worth of pensions to pensioners and wages to laborers working on the construction of four ponds in Village Minapa. The applicant allegedly withdrew funds from the 14th and 15th Finance Plans without authorization and embezzled Rs. 47,83,528/-. Therefore, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record and from perusal of the case diary it appears that, 02 FIRs were registered against the applicant in the same incident, involving embezzlement of over Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. In the present FIR, the allegation against the applicant is that, while serving as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Duled, he withheld and failed to disburse two years' worth of pensions to pensioners and wages to laborers working on the construction of four ponds in Village Minapa. The applicant allegedly withdrew funds from the 14th and 15th Finance Plans without authorization and embezzled Rs. 47,83,528/-, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Uday Bhaskar, involved in Crime No. 05/2024, registered at Police Station – Chintagufa, District – Sukma (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek