Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2846 of 2025 Durgashankar Panda S/o Gopesh Panda Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khamharpali, P.S. Singhoda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.04.2025 Order on Board 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 293/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of I.T. Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Mithlesh 2 Agrawal, who is the owner/proprietor of Dhruvi Construction and Dhruvi Firm, alleged that the bank account of Dhruvi Construction is maintained with SBI, and that of Dhruvi Firm is with ICICI Bank. Both accounts were being operated by his employee, namely Durga Kumar Panda, i.e., the present applicant. It is alleged that the present applicant transferred an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the said accounts without the complainant’s consent. Consequently, an FIR was registered under the aforementioned offences against the applicant and another individual to whom the said amount was transferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is an employee of the complainant, and the entire transaction in question was carried out under the direct instructions of the complainant himself. The complainant had full knowledge of each and every transaction made, and the same was executed with his consent. However, in an attempt to recover the payments from the individuals to whom the amounts were transferred, the complainant has resorted to arm- twisting tactics by initiating criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is engaged in construction work, and the amounts were transferred from the firm’s account to various persons from whom construction work and supply of materials were sought on the complainant’s own instructions. He also submits that when those persons failed to 3 execute the assigned work or deliver the materials, the complainant, in order to recover the funds, fabricated a false narrative and gave a criminal color to what is essentially a civil dispute, thereby making the applicant a scapegoat. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 20.11.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant transferred an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the said accounts without the complainant’s consent, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegation is that the present applicant transferred an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the said accounts without the complainant’s consent, but the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 20.11.2024, 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. 8. Let applicant, Durgashankar Panda, involved in Crime No. 4 293/2024, registered at Police Station : Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of I.T. Act, 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, 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. 5 (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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. OfÏce 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 Rahul Dewangan