1 2026:CGHC:10767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 73 of 2026 Juber Siddiki S/o Mohd. Sikandar Siddiki Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Vyapari Talab Bagbahra, Ps And Tehsil Bagbahra (Sinkar And Bagbahar Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order), District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. This is the 8rst bail application 8led 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 No. 130/2025 registered at Police Station Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the o=ences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5) and 338 of the BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant lodged an FIR stating that during inspection of the liquor shop on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 18.08.2025, liquor stock valued at Rs. 47,45,189/- was found missing. Upon physical veri8cation, it was alleged that the employees of the liquor shop and the employees of C.M.S. had embezzled the liquor stock and the corresponding amount. Accordingly, the present applicant along with co-accused, being employees, have been implicated as accused in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no direct or indirect involvement of the applicant in the alleged o=ence. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 318(4) of the B.N.S. are not attracted in the present case and the applicant has no connection with the alleged embezzlement or forgery. The applicant was merely working as a Supervisor and no speci8c role has been attributed to him in the entire charge-sheet and therefore his implication appears to be doubtful and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the applicant is 27 years old and has no previous criminal antecedents and being a responsible member and important support of his family, his continued detention would cause severe hardship to him and his dependents. It is also submitted that the alleged embezzlement of such a huge amount is improbable in view of the fact that the liquor was sold through bar-code system and the accounts are subject to regular government audit, however, no such audit report has been produced by the prosecution till date. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the applicant has been made an accused merely as a formality along with co-accused Govind Dhruv and the employees of C.M.S. 3 Company, whose duty was to collect and deposit the cash and there is no allegation that the sale proceeds were not deposited in the State fund. It is lastly submitted that the trial has not yet commenced and is likely to take considerable time and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required therefore, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present applicant Juber Siddiqui, in a well-planned manner and in connivance with other co-accused persons, committed embezzlement of the liquor sale proceeds during the period from July to August by making overwriting in the bank deposit slips. It is further submitted that the act committed by the applicant is serious in nature and such incidents of embezzlement by employees of authorized liquor shops are increasing day by day and therefore granting bail to the applicant would have an adverse impact on society and may lead to repetition of similar o=ences. It is also submitted that the applicant has admitted his involvement in the o=ence in his memorandum statement and a Samsung mobile phone has been seized from his possession during the course of investigation. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o=ence, period of detention of the applicant since 23.08.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge- 4 sheet has been 8led before the competent Court and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Juber Siddiki, involved in Crime No. 130/2025 registered at Police Station Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the o=ences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5) and 338 of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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 8le an undertaking to the e=ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 8xed 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 8xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suFcient 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 the applicant fails to appear before the court on 5 the date 8xed 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 8xed 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 suFcient 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. 9. OFce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal