1 CGHC010310352026 2026:CGHC:36330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.7538 of 2026 Arun Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramsamujh Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Neem Dabri, Talab, Near Narmadeshwar Temple, Sector -04, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, District Raipur CG ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Of The Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur CG. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Ms. Ritika Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.252/2026 registered at Police SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.14 19:14:11 +0530 2 Station – City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Section 316(4) of BNS. 2. According to the prosecution’s case, the Applicant was working as a salesman at Mantra Gold, a wholesale establishment dealing in gold ornaments owned by the complainant Pradeep Bajaj, since 2019. On 23.04.2026, upon reconciliation of the stock of the establishment, a shortage was noticed. When questioned, the Applicant informed that the missing gold articles had been kept at his residence. On being asked to immediately bring and return the gold articles, the Applicant went to his residence but did not return. Despite repeated calls, he kept assuring the complainant that he was coming and thereafter switched off his mobile phone. Upon detailed reconciliation of the entire stock, it was found that approximately 1,250 grams of gold ornaments and 350 grams of gold were missing from the establishment. On making inquiries with other traders, it was revealed that certain gold articles from the missing stock had been sent to them on approval basis, against which the Applicant, in connivance with his father Samujh Yadav and wife Nisha Yadav, had allegedly received the sale proceeds in their respective bank accounts but had not deposited the said amount with the complainant. Accordingly, the offence was 3 registered and investigation was taken up and the Applicant was duly arrested. Hence this application. 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 much prior to registration of the FIR, the Applicant himself had submitted written complaints dated 28.04.2026 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Raipur, and 05.05.2026 before the Commissioner of Police, Raipur, alleging that the complainant and persons associated with Mantra Gold had induced him to permit the use of his and his family members' bank accounts for business transactions on the assurance that he would be inducted as a partner and had apprehended false implication in the event he demanded proper documentation and transparency. It is further submitted that the Applicant had been serving the complainant since 2019 and the business transactions were being routed through the bank accounts of the Applicant and his family members with their knowledge and consent and no allegation of misappropriation was made during the long-standing business relationship. He further submits that although the alleged stock shortage was detected on 23.04.2026, the FIR was lodged only on 27.05.2026, whereas the Applicant had already approached 4 the police authorities on 28.04.2026 and 05.05.2026, rendering the prosecution case doubtful and indicating that the present FIR is a retaliatory counterblast. It is also contended that the allegation regarding receipt of sale proceeds in the bank accounts of the Applicant and his family members is vague and does not disclose the specific transactions, dates or period of the alleged misappropriation. Lastly, it is submitted that the Applicant is in custody since 28.05.2026 and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, he may be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the present Applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant had approached the police authorities prior to registration of the present FIR by submitting complaints alleging misuse of his and his family members' bank accounts, the delay in registration of the FIR after the alleged stock shortage was noticed, the period of custody of the Applicant since 5 28.05.2026, the fact that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the Applicant and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Arun Kumar Yadav involved in Crime No. 252/2026 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Section 316(4) of BNS 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/she 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, in 6 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/her in accordance with law. 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 Priya