1 2025:CGHC:8369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1360 of 2025 Sukdev Badai S/o Virendra Badai, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bhothaldih, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 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. 293/2024 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act. 2. The case, in brief, is that the complainant, Mithlesh Agrawal, is the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.19 11:47:02 +0530 2 owner/proprietor of Dhruvi Construction and Dhruvi Firm. The bank accounts of Dhruvi Construction are held at SBI, while those of Dhruvi Firm are held at ICICI Bank. Both accounts were managed by his employee, Durga Kumar Panda. It is alleged that Durga Kumar Panda transferred an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs) without the complainant's consent. Upon inquiry, the complainant discovered the fraudulent transfer and filed a complaint against Durga Kumar Panda. Consequently, an FIR was registered against Durga Kumar Panda under the aforementioned offenses. Subsequent investigation, based on a memorandum, revealed that out of the total amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- had been transferred into the account of the present applicant. As a result, the applicant was also arrested and implicated as an accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was transferred into the account of the present applicant, was investigated by the applicant. Upon inquiry, the applicant discovered that the said amount had been transferred without his knowledge. Immediately, the applicant returned the said amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the account from which it was originally transferred. This action was taken prior to the registration of the FIR. Furthermore, an additional amount of Rs. 90,000/- was also transferred into the applicant's account. The applicant was in the process of returning this amount as well, but was arrested before he could do so. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal 3 antecedents and he is in jail since 20.11.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 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 further the fact that the applicant had already returned the alleged amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the account from which it was originally transferred prior to the registration of the present FIR. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 20.11.2024, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Sukdev Badai, involved in Crime No. 293/2024 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, be released on bail on 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 4 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 his 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 5 accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek