1 2026:CGHC:19627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3853 of 2026 Amit Verma S/o Late Shyamlal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o Bazarpara, N.T.P.C. Seepat, P.S. Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed 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. 200/2026 registered at Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of B.N.S. 2. As per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by the complainant, namely Suryakant Jaiswal, who is working as Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch Seepat. It is stated that, in compliance with the order dated 30.03.2026 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the Collector (Food Branch), District Bilaspur, an enquiry was conducted by a team of officials of the Food Department at the paddy procurement centre, Seepat. During the course of the enquiry, it was revealed that: (i) As per the committee module, against the reported stock of 486 quintals of paddy, the physical stock was found to be only 65.61 quintals, thereby disclosing a shortage of 420.39 quintals of paddy. (ii) As per the committee module, against the reported quantity of 1047 new gunny bags and 6405 old gunny bags, the physical verification revealed only 519 new gunny bags and 1360 old gunny bags. Thus, a shortage of 528 new gunny bags and 5045 old gunny bags was found upon physical verification. The enquiry report, prima facie, fixed responsibility for the said shortage upon Shri Amit Verma (Branch Manager, Seepat Branch), Smt. Tulsi Bai Kaushik (Authorized Officer/President), Shri Prabhakar Vaishnav (In-charge, Paddy Procurement), Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu (Computer Operator), and Shri Jagnath Kaushik (In- charge, Gunny Bags). Accordingly, the complainant, after obtaining due approval from the Collector, requested the concerned Police Station to lodge an FIR against the aforesaid accused persons. Pursuant thereto, an FIR bearing No. 200/2026 dated 07.04.2026 has been registered at Police Station Seepat against the present applicant and other accused persons for offence under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. 3 It is further submitted that the Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Bilaspur, Branch Seepat, has categorically found that there was no shortage or missing of paddy or bardana during the relevant period from 15.11.2025 to 31.01.2026, and a closure report to that effect has already been issued vide certificate dated 08.04.2026, which clearly falsifies the allegations made in the FIR dated 07.04.2026. It is also contended that, as per the resolution passed in the society meeting, the complainant was not the person in-charge of purchasing or selling paddy and therefore, the present applicant cannot be held responsible for any alleged shortage. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has neither committed the alleged offence nor was he involved in any alleged shortage purportedly detected by the committee, on the basis of which the FIR has been registered. It is further argued that the FIR itself is vague and does not disclose the specific date on which the verification was conducted, nor does it clarify the period of stock or the records and ledgers considered during such verification, thereby making the allegations baseless and unsustainable. It is also submitted that the said committee conducted the physical verification without ensuring the presence of the concerned Branch Manager and without affording any opportunity of explanation or clarification, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and arbitrarily fixing prima facie liability behind his back. It is further contended that the applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion and apprehension, without proper verification of facts by the competent authorities and that the alleged discrepancies, if 4 any, pertain to a departmental matter which ought to have been dealt with through departmental enquiry in accordance with service rules, rather than initiating criminal proceedings. Learned counsel emphasizes that there are no ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the B.N.S. made out against the present applicant, moreover, the investigation is still pending and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. Despite this, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.04.2026 without any justifiable cause. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant, opposes the bail application and submits that, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. It is contended that a substantial shortage of paddy and gunny bags has been revealed during the enquiry conducted by the competent committee and prima facie responsibility has been fixed upon the present applicant along with other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving misappropriation of public property and therefore, no leniency should be shown at this stage. He also submits that the investigation is still in progress; however, he fairly admits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. He further opposes the bail application on the ground that, if released on bail, the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence therefore, he prays for rejection of bail application. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the material available on record, particularly taking into account that the alleged incident pertains to the period from 15.11.2025 to 31.01.2026, that a closure report dated 08.04.2026 issued by the competent authority indicates no shortage of paddy or bardana during the relevant period, that the FIR does not clearly disclose the date and basis of stock verification and that prima facie the matter appears to involve issues which may also be subject to departmental enquiry, coupled with the fact that the investigation is still pending and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and further considering that the applicant is in judicial custody since 08.04.2026, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Amit Verma, involved in Crime No. 200/2026 registered at Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of B.N.S., 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 6 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 the applicant 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal