Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/3
2025:CGHC:16170
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2430 of 2025
• Suraj Sahu S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Indira
Colony Beside Nagar Palika Bhawan, Balodabazar, Dist - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O., P.S. Palari, Dist. - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge PAWAN
KUMAR
ORDER ON BOARD JHA
07/04/2025 Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
1. Applicant has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 488/2022 registered at Police Station –
Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for offence punishable under
Sections 420, 408, 409 & 120-B of IPC.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant Prahlad Kumar Patel
(Branch Manager of District Co-operative Central Bank Maryadit, Raipur,
C.G., Branch Vatgan) lodged a complaint on 31.08.2022 alleging that the
applicant who was working as Assistant Accountant Officer in the said bank
has embezzled a total amount of Rs. 3,23,16,975.59/- between 05.09.2018 to
01.08.2022 by manipulating deposits and withdrawals in the accounts of
2/3
account holders of the concerned bank. Based on the report, aforementioned
offence was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 08.09.2022.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the crime, he has not committed offence as alleged. It is
contended that applicant was working as Assistant Accountant and he was not
in authorized position to deposit or withdraw any amount from the accounts of
accounts holders. A sole bank official cannot be held liable for any
embezzlement as the transaction of amount, either deposit or withdraw, has
to undergo various verification process done by bank officials and the same
has collective responsibility. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed
and there is no incriminating material available in the charge-sheet against
applicant to show that the applicant has embezzled any amount. It is
contended that the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on
bail by this Hon’ble Court on 14.12.2022 in MCRC Nos. 9698/2022,
9994/2022 and 9731/2022. Applicant is in jail since 08.09.2022. Trial is likely
to take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that there are serious
allegations of embezzlement of huge amount of ₹ 3,23,16,975.59/- from the
account holders of the bank. Applicant in conspiracy with other co-accused
persons whose accounts were used for routing the amount to the account of
applicant has committed embezzlement of public money, therefore, he is not
entitled for grant of bail. However, he does not dispute the submission of
learned counsel for applicant with regard to grant of bail to co-accused
persons.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that
3/3
the co-accused persons have already granted bail by this Court on
14.12.2022, charge-sheet has already been filed and the period of detention
of applicant since 08.09.2022, trial may take some time to conclude, without
commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this
application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall
be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on
the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case
of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link