Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 288 of 2025 Karan Yadav S/o Shri Ramkumar Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Haldibadi, Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.01.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.15 11:36:56 +0530 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 338/2024, registered at Police Station : Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was lodged by the complainant, Sushil Kacher, at Police Station Manendragarh, 2 alleging that he was posted as the Branch Manager of Sampadna Financial Limited, Manendragarh, from 28.08.2024. During a field audit, he discovered that the previous employee, Devkumar Kuren, who was posted at the branch from 13.07.2021, had embezzled Rs. 2,00,089/- from 9 members. It was further alleged that Bharat Das, who was posted at the branch from 01.12.2020, embezzled Rs. 35,885/- from 12 members, Karan Yadav (present applicant), who was posted from 20.12.2020, embezzled Rs. 1,11,740/- and Rajkumar Ahirwar, who was posted from 13.12.2021, embezzled Rs. 3,92,286/- total amount embezzled was Rs. 7,40,100/-, and it is alleged that the misappropriation was carried out through a well- planned conspiracy. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the present applicant worked in the company from 10.12.2020 to 30.11.2023, after which he submitted his resignation. Applicant was accused of embezzlement by Spandana Sphoorti Company nearly 1 year, after his resignations. According to the company’s rules, resignations are accepted only after providing 45 days’ prior notice before leaving the company. This notice period allows the company’s ofÏcials to thoroughly review and ensure complete satisfaction before accepting the resignation. However, even after the applicant submitted his resignations, the company neither issued any written or verbal communication to him nor conducted any inquiry. Instead, the company directly accused him of misappropriation and 3 outstanding recoveries. It is also evident that, on the alleged dates of embezzlement, the applicant was no longer employed with the company. This clearly demonstrates that the applicant did not engage in any form of embezzlement during his tenure with the company. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that the previous employee, Devkumar Kuren, who was posted at the branch from 13.07.2021, had embezzled Rs. 2,00,089/- from 9 members. It was further alleged that Bharat Das, who was posted at the branch from 01.12.2020, embezzled Rs. 35,885/- from 12 members, Karan Yadav (present applicant), who was posted from 20.12.2020, embezzled Rs. 1,11,740/- and Rajkumar Ahirwar, who was posted from 13.12.2021, embezzled Rs. 3,92,286/- total amount embezzled was Rs. 7,40,100/-, and it is alleged that the misappropriation was carried out through a well- planned conspiracy. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 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 that though the present applicant, who was posted from 20.12.2020 4 in the bank, embezzled Rs. 1,11,740/-, but the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024, the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Karan Yadav, involved in Crime No. 338/2024, registered at Police Station : Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on 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 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 sufÏcient 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, 5 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan