Rajkumar Naidu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

17.06.2026

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.29/2012 registered at Police Station – EOW / ACB, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 of IPC & Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

2. As per the prosecution story, the applicant, while acting as the 2 Liquidator of National Mineral Development Corporation Employees Housing Cooperative Society and Bhairav Housing Cooperative Society, Raipur, arbitrarily cancelled the registration of previously allotted plots and sold them to other individuals at rates lower than the Collector's guidelines. It is further alleged that this caused a financial loss of Rs. 2,04,92,480/- to the societies and that the proceeds from the resale were not deposited into the society's bank accounts. It is also alleged that the applicant continued to operate bank accounts and misappropriate funds even after being suspended on 24.05.2012

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offence. There is no legal, reliable, or admissible material available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged crime. The FIR in the present matter was registered in the year 2012, whereas the applicant was arrested only on 06.04.2026 after an unexplained and inordinate delay of about 14 years. Throughout this period, the applicant remained available and cooperated with the investigation. In fact, upon receiving a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C./Section 179 BNSS read with Section 91 Cr.P.C./Section 94 BNSS, the applicant appeared before the authorities on 06.04.2026, but was arrested without any prior intimation or justification. The applicant is further entitled to the benefit of parity as a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court in MCRCA No. 683 of 2026, and the allegations as well as the nature of evidence against the co-accused and the present applicant are substantially identical. The applicant is a 68-year-old 3 senior citizen suffering from serious and chronic ailments, including Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and obesity. He has previously undergone primary angioplasty on 12.02.2020 following an Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction and is presently dependent on continuous medication. His continued incarceration poses a grave risk to his health and life. Furthermore, the entire case rests upon documentary evidence such as registries, society records, ledgers, and bank statements, all of which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. Therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and his further detention serves no useful purpose. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application of the applicant. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, and the fact that the co-accused, namely Sushil Agrawal has already been granted bail vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 683 of 2026, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant

6. 4 have been in judicial custody since 06.04.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.

7. Let applicant, Rajkumar Naidu, involved in Crime No.29/2012 registered at Police Station – EOW / ACB, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 of IPC & Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. , 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 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav