1 2026:CGHC:24454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 871 of 2026 Suraj Sahu S/o Shiv Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Bandhwapara, Purani Basti, Tehsil Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Kotwali, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 17.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 241/2026, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 316 of BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant is engaged in the business of gold and silver ornaments under the name and style KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of “Manoharmal & Company Jewelers”, situated at Sadar Bazar, Raipur. It is alleged that the present applicant had been working at the said establishment for the last about 16 years and was entrusted with the responsibility of removing gold and silver ornaments from the display counters and safely keeping them in the locker/vault at the end of each business day. It is further alleged that on 09.04.2026 at about 16:21 hours (04:21 PM), while allegedly returning the ornaments to the locker, the applicant did not place certain ornaments at their designated place and instead dishonestly retained the same in his possession. It is also alleged that during stock verification conducted on 13.04.2026, the complainant detected a shortage of approximately 1495.670 grams of gold ornaments. Thereafter, upon examining the CCTV footage installed at the shop premises, suspicion was raised against the present applicant regarding the alleged misappropriation of the said ornaments. Accordingly, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the entire prosecution case rests solely upon suspicion arising from CCTV footage and an alleged internal stock discrepancy detected by the complainant. There is no direct evidence, independent witness, or recovery from the possession of the applicant to establish his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant had been working with the complainant's establishment for the last about 16 years and enjoyed 3 the confidence of the employer, having been entrusted with the responsibility of handling and transporting valuable gold and silver ornaments. The alleged shortage was noticed only during stock verification conducted several days after the alleged incident and the FIR itself has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than one month, which casts serious doubt upon the genuineness of the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submits that the entire case is based upon documentary and electronic evidence, which is already in possession of the complainant and the investigating agency, and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is argued that no recovery has been effected from the applicant and the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are yet to be established. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 457, to contend that where the prosecution case is founded primarily on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the local area, has no antecedents, is the sole earner of his family and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. On these grounds, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. It is 4 contended that sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation indicating the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, material available on record and the case diary, this Court finds that the applicant was admittedly employed at the complainant's jewellery establishment and was entrusted with the responsibility of handling and securing gold and silver ornaments. The allegations against the applicant pertain to criminal breach of trust involving a substantial quantity of gold ornaments. The prosecution case is supported by CCTV footage and the discrepancy detected during stock verification, which prima facie raises suspicion regarding the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. At this stage, the investigation is still in progress and the allegations cannot be said to be wholly baseless or improbable. The contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant regarding false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of recovery and the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage are matters which require thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be 5 conclusively examined while considering an application for anticipatory bail. 7. Having regard to the nature of the accusation, the amount of property allegedly involved, the relationship of trust between the parties and the requirement of a fair and effective investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Suraj Sahu, filed under Section 482 of BNSS, involved in Crime No. 241/2026, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 316 of BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal