Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner was an employee of the complainant; the total sales of the complainant's shop, as per GST returns, were Rs. 5,19,000/-; the charge-sheet had been filed; the petitioner had been in custody since July 5, 2026; and he had no criminal antecedents. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were made without commenting on the merits of the case and that the trial court would not be influenced by them. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions to ensure fair trial and appearance.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Fazil, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 132/2026 for alleged misappropriation of truck spare parts worth Rs. 14,37,226/- from his employer, M/s. Indian Motors, where he worked as a Manager. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with co-accused, dishonestly misappropriated these parts. The petitioner has been in jail since July 5, 2026, and a charge-sheet has been filed. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was refunded by a co-accused, Kainath Khan, and another Rs. 4,00,000/- was refunded by the petitioner's wife. The petitioner claims to have no criminal antecedents and that the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that a significant amount has been refunded, the petitioner has been falsely implicated, the charge-sheet has been filed, he has been incarcerated since July 5, 2026, has no prior criminal record, and the offences are bailable in nature, with the trial likely to take time. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and the objector opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner is the main culprit, his involvement is evident from the charge-sheet documents, and the seriousness of the offences warrants rejection of the bail application. They also noted the refund of Rs. 4,00,000/- by the petitioner's wife.