1 2026:CGHC:22070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3425 of 2026 K. Chandrashekhar S/o Late K. Suribabu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Kotwarpara, Near Railway Colony Ward No. 18 House No.86, Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bacheli District Sourth Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Non-applicant/ State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11/05/2026 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.49/2025, registered at Police Station : Bacheli, District- South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.12 20:06:36 +0530 2 Sections 316(5), 336(3), 318, 338, 340, 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written report before the concerned Police Station alleging that the accused persons failed to deposit an amount of Rs.92,09,370/- pertaining to stock shortage and an amount of Rs.60,38,404/- received from sale of liquor from their bank account into the Government account. On the basis of the said allegations, the police registered an FIR against the applicant and other accused persons, arrested the applicant during the course of investigation, and thereafter filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no direct involvement in the alleged offence, as no credible material is available on record to establish either the requisite mens rea or any active participation on his part in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant was merely working as a salesman along with other staff members at the liquor shop and the FIR has been lodged against him solely on the basis of presumption. It is further submitted that similarly 3 situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.10419/2025, 1754/2026, 1554/2026, 3041/2026 and 4211/2026. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, no incriminating material or proceeds of crime have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, and he is in judicial custody since 28.11.2025. Therefore, the applicant also deserves to be enlarged on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that sufÏcient material is available on record prima facie indicating the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant was working as a salesman in the concerned liquor shop and actively participated in the transactions relating to the alleged misappropriation of Government money. Learned State counsel further submits that huge financial irregularities involving public revenue have been revealed during investigation and the offence is serious in nature. It is also submitted that merely because some co-accused persons have been granted bail, the applicant is not automatically entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as his role is distinguishable from that of the other 4 accused persons. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, learned State counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that the applicant was working as a salesman in the concerned liquor shop, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no incriminating material or proceeds of crime have been recovered from his possession, and the applicant is in judicial custody since 28.11.2025, coupled with the fact that similarly situated co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – K. Chandrashekhar, involved in Crime No.49/2025, registered at Police Station : Bacheli, District-South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 318, 338, 340, 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing 5 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. (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 him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 6 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 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 Arpan