1 2026:CGHC:24078 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3269 of 2026 Pradeep Kumar Ambastha S/o Late Indedevlal Aged About 60 Years Profession- Assistant Grade-2 Office Of Deputy Director Of Veterinary Services Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 126/2026 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that from the perusal of the record, it appears prima facie that on the basis of a written complaint RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 lodged by the complainant, namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, In- charge Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, FIR No. 126/2026 was registered on 25.02.2026 at Police Station Ambikapur for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and investigation was set into motion. As per the prosecution case, allegations have been levelled against the applicant regarding embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 1,07,84,340/- by allegedly not depositing the government amount into the Government Treasury. It is further alleged that a departmental enquiry team was constituted in August, 2025 to inquire into the matter and, on the basis of the findings thereof, a complaint was forwarded to the police in September, 2025, pursuant to which the present crime came to be registered against the applicant. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations of embezzlement are baseless, concocted and motivated by personal animosity on the part of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant himself was the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the department and no amount could have been withdrawn or disbursed from the Government Treasury without his approval and signature. He further submits that the cash book and accounts were regularly maintained with the signatures of all concerned authorities and that the Collector, being the Chairman of the Rogi Kalyan Samiti, exercised supervisory control over the financial transactions, thereby ruling out the possibility of any 3 unilateral misappropriation by the applicant. It is also submitted that the accounts were subjected to annual audits and no discrepancy or embezzlement was ever detected therein. According to the applicant, before lodging the FIR, the authorities ought to have conducted a fresh audit of the accounts and records. Learned counsel further contends that the complaint has been lodged with mala fide intention after the applicant refused to comply with certain illegal demands allegedly made by the complainant regarding withdrawal of government funds for non-official purposes. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case rests upon documentary evidence, which is already in the custody of the department and investigating agency, and therefore no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in continued custody. It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation throughout and had himself approached higher administrative and police authorities seeking a fair inquiry and preservation of records. He also submits that the applicant had furnished a detailed reply to the show-cause notice along with account details, cash book entries, bank statements and audit reports demonstrating that no embezzlement had taken place. It is further submitted that an earlier inquiry had also been conducted in the matter wherein no offence was found to have been committed. The applicant had consistently objected to financial irregularities and insisted upon proper bills and vouchers, and there is a possibility that the liability for alleged irregularities committed by others is being shifted upon him. He further submits that the applicant has rendered more than 40 years 4 of blemish-free service, is about 60 years of age, is on the verge of retirement, and has already been placed under suspension and he has no criminal antecedents and has never been involved in any offence, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 03.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence relating to misappropriation and embezzlement of Government funds amounting to Rs. 1,07,84,340/-, which has caused substantial loss to the public exchequer. It is submitted that during the departmental enquiry as well as the investigation conducted by the police, sufficient material has surfaced indicating the involvement of the applicant in the alleged financial irregularities. He further submits that the offence pertains to breach of public trust and misuse of official position while dealing with Government funds, and therefore the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature. It is contended that the investigation has revealed discrepancies in the financial records and transactions maintained by the applicant, which prima facie establish his complicity in the commission of the offence. Considering the magnitude of the amount involved, the seriousness of the allegations, and the impact of such economic offences on public administration and society at large, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegations are that the applicant is involved in a serious economic offence involving alleged embezzlement of Government funds amounting to Rs. 1,07,84,340/-, but it is to be noted that the applicant has rendered more than 40 years of blemish-free service, is about 60 years of age, is on the verge of retirement, and has already been placed under suspension and he has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 03.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the period of detention, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Pradeep Kumar Ambastha, involved in Crime No. 126/2026 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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, 6 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan