Krishna Kumar Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

_____________________________________________________ For Applicant - Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Government Advocate.

¶12

___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

02-04-2025

¶15

This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of bail to the applicant who is in jail in connection with crime No. 200 / 2018 registered at Police Station - Baghbahara, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under sections 409, 420 & 34 of IPC and 66 of the I.T. Act. The first bail application being M.Cr.C. No. 44 / 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07-01-2025 passed by this Court.

¶16

Case of prosecution in brief is that the first informant Pankaj Dahire, CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, filed a complaint against the applicant in furtherance of which an FIR No. 200/2018 was registered by the Police Station -

¶17

-2-

¶18

Bagbahara, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.), On 05.09.2018. Complainant says that, applicant was employed as Data Entry Operator and in between 17.08.2015 to 17.06.2017. he misplayed with the MIS (in online website) and there by managed to get transferred Rs.-22,83,383/- of MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act), in to his own Bank account in Punjab National Bank, Bagbahara. Thereby he embezzled the said amount. Out of said amount of Rs. 22,83,383/- payment of Rs. 8,16,383/- has been made at level of Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara and payment of Rs. 4,50,000 + 10,17,000 14.67,000/have been made at the level of District Panchayat.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is only a Data Entry Operator and is not authorized to transfer any amount to his own account until and unless it is being approve by the Higher Official. He further submits that in order to save the Higher Officials, the applicant has been made scape goat. He further submits that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and there is no requirement of the custodial interrogation of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09/12/2024 and he is the sole bread winner of his family. He submits that other co-accused Kapoorsingh Dhruv has been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No. 732/2025 vide order dated 21/02/2025 by this Court. He submits that applicant is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting the bail. He further submit that trial is likely to take sometime as about 18 witnesses yet to be examined. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. There is no possibility of absconding or

¶20

-3-

¶21

tempering the evidence as the applicant is an permanent residence of the given address. Therefore, he prays that the bail application may be allowed.

¶22

Per contra, State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the allegations and evidence collected, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

Taking into the consideration of the submissions made at the Bar, detention period of the applicant, other co-accused - Kapoorsingh Dhruv has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, investigation is complete and chargesheet is filed and trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶27

(ii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶28

(iii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶29

(iv) that applicant shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

-4-

¶31

The victim/complainant or State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant if he violates any of the conditions as mentioned above.

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶35

Ashsih

Krishna Kumar Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Kewat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Sharma Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash (Died and Abated) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Bhigeshwary Bandhaw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh