1 2026:CGHC:4413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 350 of 2026 Manoj Gupta S/o Muktiram Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Tenda- Navapara, P.S. And Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) .. Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through O1ce-In Charge Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 89/2025, registered at Police Station : Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17.04.2025, the Branch Manager of Apex Bank lodged a complaint stating that as per the paddy purchase report dated 25.02.2025, a de>ciency of 7,159.60 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 quintals of paddy, amounting to ₹2,21,94,760/-, was found during physical veri>cation. It was further alleged that various discrepancies were detected in respect of 4,108 pieces of Bardana, 426 pieces of Millers’ Bardana, and 426 pieces of PDS Bardana, amounting to ₹5,70,500/-, at the Tenda Paddy Procurement Centre, Nawapara, thereby causing >nancial loss to the Government. Subsequently, investigation was initiated and the present applicant was arrested and a charge-sheet has been >led against him under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no criminal antecedents are registered against the applicant. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been >led and the applicant was working as an Assistant Manager at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Tenda–Nawapara, and did not possess any >nancial powers. It is further contended that the name of the applicant appears only in the memorandum statement of a co- accused and merely on the basis of suspicion, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. He also submits that a similarly situated co-accused, namely Dilip Rathiya, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10525/2025, vide order dated 19.01.2026. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its conclusion. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant and the charge-sheet has 3 been >led before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 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, nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused, namely Dilip Rathiya, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 10525/2025, vide order dated 19.01.2026 and further in the present case, charge- sheet has been >led before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedents therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant on parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Manoj Gupta, involved in Crime No. 89/2025, registered at Police Station : Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S, be released on bail on his 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 >le an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates >xed 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 >xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su1cient 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 >xed 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 >xed 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 su1cient 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. 9. O1ce is directed to send a certi>ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal