Bhatapara, C.G v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station
Case Details
Page No.1 of 5 IN MCRC-3084-2025 2025:CGHC:22076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3084 of 2025 Amritlal Patel S/o Nandkumar Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rangora, Police Station Rajadevri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Rajadevri, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicants For Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy. GA : : 15.05.2025 Order on Board 1. This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 01.03.2025 in connection with Crime No.11/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajadevri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(2), 238 read with 3(5) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.02.2025 a written complaint was made by the Branch Manager, Main Branch Baya, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur (C.G) against the Page No.2 of 5 IN MCRC-3084-2025 applicant Amritlal Patel (Samiti Prabandhak) and the co-accused Kurtivas Barik (Fad In-charge) of Paddy Procurement Center, Rikokala regarding irregularity of 5971 bags of paddy. It was stated that on 30/01/2025, an inquiry was conducted by a team of SDO (Revenue), Kasdol in Paddy Procurement Centre Rikokala regarding the irregularity in the work of paddy purchase. As per the records, there should have been 6425.60 quintals of Paddy in 16064 sacks in the centre but on counting only 4037.20 quintals of Paddy in 10093 sacks were found in Paddy Procurement Centre Rikokala. Thus, 2388.40 quintals i.e. 5971 sacks of less paddy were found in the centre amounting to Rs. 74,04,040/- (Seventy Four Lakhs Four Thousand Forty Rupees). On the basis of the aforesaid, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 3(5) of BNS against the applicant and the co-accused. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. He submits that at the time when the aforesaid irregularity was being committed, the applicant was not the Samiti Prabandhak. Even otherwise, though it is alleged that 2388.40 quintals i.e. 5971 sacks of paddy were found less, but vide Panchnama dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure-A/3) only 155 sacks were found to be less. Therefore, the allegation against the applicant appears to be Page No.3 of 5 IN MCRC-3084-2025 exaggerated and inaccurate. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 01.03.2025 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits the applicant was the Samiti Prabandhak at the relvant point of time has committed irregularities. He also submits that as some bags of paddy were being transported, therefore, at the time of preparation of Panchnama dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure-A/3) only 155 bags of paddy were found less. Therefore, the applicant 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. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that it is alleged that 2388.40 quintals i.e. 5971 sacks of paddy were found less, but vide Panchnama dated 09.02.2025 (Annexure-A/3) only 155 sacks were found to be less and there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant, charge- sheet has been filed against in the case and, the applicant in jail since 01.03.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Amritlal Patel involved in Crime No.11/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajadevri, District Balodabazar Page No.4 of 5 IN MCRC-3084-2025 Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 318(2), 238 read with 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety 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 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) Page No.5 of 5 IN MCRC-3084-2025 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. s@if Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice