1 CGHC010244342026 2026:CGHC:33014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5797 of 2026 Pramod Mahant S/o Dharamdas Mahant Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Pusalda (Wrongly Mentioned As Pulsada In Annexure A-1), P.S. Chhal, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 5914 of 2026 Rohan Pradhan S/o Narayan Pradhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Jhagrendih, P.S. Sankra District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Detail Of The Applicant Has Not Mentioned In Annexure A-1) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/07/2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 341/2025 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report alleging that the present applicants, along with other co- accused, being employees entrusted with collecting money from beneficiaries on behalf of the company, dishonestly misappropriated the amounts so collected by failing to deposit the same in the company's bank account. It is alleged that the present applicants, namely, Pramod Mahant, Rohan Pradhan and co-accused, Deepak Kumar in collusion with each other, misappropriated a total amount of Rs. 22,66,645/- collected from various beneficiaries during different periods. On the basis of the said allegations, the concerned police registered the FIR against the applicants and the co-accused for the alleged offences, and 3 the investigation was set into motion. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Shubham Panigrahi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 in MCRCA No.319 of 2026. The applicants are in jail since 08.06.2026, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submits that while working as an employee of the complainant company, the applicants collected Rs. 5,35,869/- from 16 beneficiaries during the period from 13.12.2024 to 23.12.2024 and, in conspiracy with the co- accused, dishonestly failed to deposit the said amount in the company's bank account, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 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, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicants 4 since 08.06.2026, the fact that though the applicants allegedly while working as an employee of the complainant company, the applicants collected Rs. 5,35,869/- from 16 beneficiaries during the period from 13.12.2024 to 23.12.2024 and, in conspiracy with the co-accused, dishonestly failed to deposit the said amount in the company's bank account, but considering the fact that one of the co-accused, namely, Shubham Panigrahi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 in MCRCA No.319 of 2026 and the applicants have no criminal antecedents, though the charge-sheet has not been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicants-Pramod Mahant and Rohan Pradhan, involved in Crime No. 341/2025 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 5 liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil