Bail granted after charge-sheet filing despite substantial alleged misappropriation, given no criminal antecedents and likely trial delay.

The applicant, Gangadhar Jagat, was posted as the In-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre, Bamhni.

During physical verification conducted on 16 May 2026 pursuant to the Collector’s order, a shortage of 3,742 quintals of paddy, equivalent to 9,355 bags, was allegedly detected against the computerized stock records.

The alleged shortage was valued at approximately ₹1,16,00,200, with additional discrepancies concerning gunny bags.

On the basis of the Branch Manager’s report dated 27 May 2026, Crime No. 281/2026 was registered at Police Station Basna for an offence under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the applicant was arrested on the same day.

The applicant contended that mere appointment as Centre In-charge did not establish exclusive custody or criminal responsibility, particularly when procurement, transportation and lifting involved several authorities and agencies.

He also relied on the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents and the likelihood of delay in trial.

The charge-sheet was filed on 31 July 2026, and the applicant thereafter sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the offence alleged under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the possibility of interference with the investigation or evidence, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournments and regulate his conduct during trial.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation: the applicant, as Centre In-charge, was alleged to be responsible for the shortage of 3,742 quintals of paddy and the resulting governmental loss of approximately ₹1,16,00,200.

However, the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the apprehension of interference with the investigation or documentary evidence.

The Court also noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 27 May 2026 and had no criminal antecedents.

Although the applicant’s role and the alleged loss were relevant considerations, the Court treated the question of his individual criminal responsibility as a matter for trial and concluded that continued detention was not necessary at the pre-trial stage.

Bail was therefore considered appropriate, subject to strict attendance and non-delay conditions.

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every scheduled date, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further provided for consequences in the event of misuse of bail or non-compliance with proclamation and attendance requirements.