1 CGHC010266202026 2026:CGHC:30667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6433 of 2026 John Toppo S/o Late Jaidaan Toppo Aged About 37 Years R/o- Village- Hargawan, P.S. and Tahsil- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), Permanent R/o- Village- Amera, P.S. and Tahsil- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O., P.S.- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.07.2026 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. 37/2026, registered at Police Station - Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.21 14:57:56 +0530 2 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.03.2026, the complainant, Ved Prakash Pandey, working as the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh, lodged a written complaint before the Police Station alleging that accused Jon Kumar Toppo, working as the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Hargawan, and Sanjay Das, working as the Rozgar Sahayak of the said Gram Panchayat, had embezzled government funds by falsely geo-tagging the houses of beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), transferring the housing assistance amounts to their own accounts, obtaining cash and thumb impressions from the beneficiaries, and creating false records showing completion of the sanctioned houses. It is further alleged that, after preparing forged muster rolls, the accused transferred the amounts to the accounts of various labourers by issuing fake muster rolls. As a result, both the accused persons are alleged to have misappropriated a total amount of Rs.10,05,881/- and thereby committed the alleged offences. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered the aforesaid offences against the present applicant and the co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is serving as the Gram Panchayat Secretary and had merely reported the irregularities committed by the Rozgar Sahayak regarding the withdrawal of funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana without execution of the sanctioned work. Owing to the said complaint, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further 3 submits that the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Das has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated13.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4336/2026. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. He submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 18.03.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court. He submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, for which no explanation has been furnished in Part D of the bail application. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and further the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Das has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4336/2026, also considering the fact that the present applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, one is under the Gambling Act, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 18.03.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant – John Toppo, involved in Crime No. 37/2026, registered at Police Station - Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya 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, 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 such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against his, 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. 5 8. 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 Preeti