1 2025:CGHC:58949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1915 of 2025 Sudhir Nishad S/o Shri Uttra Nishad Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tamnar, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh(C.G.) 2 - Rakesh Tiwari S/o Late Madanmohan Tiwari Branch Manager, Shriram Finance Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr.Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station – Gharghoda District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 & 120B of the IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.05 18:47:02 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant is resident of Tamnar, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh, was employed as Manager at Shriram Finance Company, Tamnar Branch. The complainant, Rakesh Tiwari, reported to Police Station Gharghoda that the applicant, along with co-accused Virendra Pratap Purset and Khemraj Gupta, during the period from 12.09.2017 to 15.03.2019, sanctioned loans to 26 customers for business purposes, and in the process, allegedly misappropriated Rs. 1,30,50,000/- causing financial loss to the company. An internal enquiry conducted by the company revealed fabrication of documents, forgery, and manipulation of accounts by the accused, leading to the filing of FIR No. 297/2025 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471, and 120B IPC at Police Station Gharghoda. The applicant was previously issued show-cause notices and eventually terminated on 25.04.2019 for causing losses to the company. Similar allegations had earlier led to FIR No. 321/2020 at Police Station Tamnar, and the applicant was granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C.A No. 597/2022. The present FIR arises from the same nature of allegations, implicating the applicant as he was an employee of the company at the relevant time. The applicant has been falsely implicated, there is no direct evidence against him regarding the offences, and the charge sheet in the present case has not yet been filed. 3 3. The applicant submits that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to establish his involvement. The name of the applicant has been mentioned in the FIR merely because he was posted as Branch Manager at Tamnar Branch, and he was never posted at Gharghoda Branch, where the alleged offences are said to have occurred. The present FIR dated 09.11.2025 involves the same allegations of forgery and cheating as in the earlier Crime No. 321/2020, in which the applicant had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.A No. 597/2022 on 12.05.2022. The applicant’s service with the company was terminated on 25.04.2019, and during his tenure, he was never posted at Gharghoda Branch. The allegations against him are baseless and made solely to implicate him falsely. The applicant is a reputed person of his locality, resident of village Tamnar, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh, and there is no likelihood of him absconding or tampering with witnesses. Arresting the applicant would cause unnecessary harassment to him and his family and irreparably damage his reputation and career, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, as well as learned counsel for the objector, opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant was employed as Manager at Shriram Finance Company, Tamnar Branch. The complainant 4 reported that the applicant, along with co-accused, sanctioned loans to 26 customers during the period from 12.09.2017 to 15.03.2019 and allegedly misappropriated Rs. 1,30,50,000/-, causing financial loss to the company. An internal enquiry revealed forgery, manipulation of accounts, and fabrication of documents. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the prima facie material on record, the bail application filed by the applicant be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant/accused, while posted at Shriram Finance Pvt. Ltd., along with other co-accused, allegedly prepared forged documents and falsely represented other institutions as private institutions of clients, thereby defrauding the finance company of a total loan amount of Rs.1,30,50,000 (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). A case under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant/accused at Tamnar Police Station. A charge sheet under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC has been filed in the relevant court, and the trial is currently pending. This prima facie indicates that the 5 applicant/accused has engaged in fraudulent activity. Although the applicant was previously granted anticipatory bail in a similar offence in Crime No. 321/2020 but he is again involved in the same type of offence, and the possibility of re-offending cannot be ruled out if anticipatory bail is granted. Considering all these facts, the circumstances of the case, and the nature of the offence, it does not appear appropriate to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Sudhir Nishad, involved in Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station – Gharghoda District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 & 120B of the IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav