1 2026:CGHC:2455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 514 of 2026 Pankaj Dhruw S/o. Ramkumar Dhruw, Aged About 23 Years R/o. Shuklabhatha, P.S.- City Kotwali, Baloda- Bazar, District BalodaBazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, BalodaBazar, District BalodaBazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01 .202 6 1. The applicant has preferred this First 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. 671/2025, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District- BalodaBazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the applicant collected money from different liquor shops and deposited it in the vault of the office. On the next day, he again took the money from the vault and embezzled an amount of Rs.26,78,450/-. Thereby, the applicant committed the alleged offence. Consequently, the instant F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 318(4) and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 11:51:50 +0530 2 316(5) of the B.N.S. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, which was never committed by him. He left the job 14–15 months prior to the alleged incident, and the entire embezzlement was committed by the complainant and other officers, who have falsely implicated the applicant. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. After leaving the job, the applicant had no role to play and was not even permitted to access the vault. There is no active or passive role attributed to the applicant in the present crime, nor has he been previously involved in any criminal activity. Since the applicant did not commit the alleged offence, the police is unable to account for the whereabouts of such a huge amount of money. Only Rs.41,000/- was recovered, which was deposited by the applicant’s father under pressure and deception by the police. He further submitted that the applicant is a young man aged about 23 years, with his entire future ahead of him. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of two months. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 15.11.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed. He further submits that the applicant collected money from different liquor shops and deposited it in the vault of the office. On the next day, he again took the money from the vault and embezzled an amount of Rs.26,78,450/-, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, period of detention of the applicant since 15.11.2025, the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of two months, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Pankaj Dhruw, respectively involved in Crime No. 671/2025, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District- BalodaBazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of Bharatiya 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 him 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 4 the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in 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. 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