1 CGHC010213102026 2026:CGHC:30238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4972 of 2026 1 - Tejram Patel Son of Kushlal Patel Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Village -Chakarda, Police Station -Saraipali, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Saraipali, District -Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.07.2026 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 RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 No. 121/2025 registered at Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) & 3(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the physical verification conducted at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Amarkot, for the Kharif Marketing Season 2024–25, a shortage of 11,416 bags of paddy was detected out of the total stock of 14,221 bags. As per the prescribed standard weight of 40 kilograms per bag, the shortage was assessed at 4,566.40 quintals, causing an alleged financial loss of ₹1,65,80,908/- to the Government. It is alleged that the procurement operations at the centre were being carried out under the supervision of the Centre In-charge, Kartikeshwar Yadav. Upon receipt of complaints regarding irregularities in the procurement process, a fact-finding committee conducted an inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry report and the material collected during the investigation, it was found that Kartikeshwar Yadav (Centre In-charge), Tejram Patel (Gunny Bag In-charge), and Rajendra Patel (Computer Operator) were involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Accordingly, the crime was registered against the accused persons. 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 co-accused persons have already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 4467 of 2026 and 4777 of 2026 and, therefore, the present applicant is entitled 3 to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 03.04.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant prays for grant of regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, although the charge-sheet has been filed, sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation connecting the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 4467 of 2026 and 4777 of 2026, the applicant claims parity with the said co-accused, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 03.04.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 4 7. Let the Applicant – Tejram Patel involved in Crime No.- 121/2025 registered at Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) & 3(5) of BNS, 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 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 sufficient 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 5 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi