1 2026:CGHC:21157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4200 of 2026 Pradeep Ojha S/o Late Shambhu Naath Ojha Aged About 53 Years House No. 53, Block F, Gali No. 1 Tajpur Road, Mohan Baba Complex, Badarpur, P.O. Badarpur, District - South Delhi, Delhi 110044 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Frazerpur, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Abhyauday Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.05.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station – Frazerpur (Parpa), District – Bastar (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case arises from a complaint lodged by the complainant, Lakshman Das Khemani, a partner of a firm namely City Wheels, which operates a dealership of Ashok Leyland Light Commercial Vehicles at Jagdalpur. It is alleged that the Applicant, who had been working as the General Manager of the said firm for approximately two years, was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.07 15:07:12 +0530 2 entrusted with the management of the day-to-day business operations. The complainant has alleged that the Applicant collected certain amounts from customers in connection with vehicle registration, down payments, exchange vehicle sales, and other business transactions, and allegedly misappropriated such amounts, thereby causing an alleged loss of approximately Rs. 1,70,00,000/-. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR arise out of business dealings and financial transactions relating to a partnership firm engaged in the sale and purchase of commercial vehicles. The dispute, if any, pertains to reconciliation of accounts and internal business transactions, which have been wrongly given a criminal colour. The applicant was working only as a General Manager (Sales) in the firm and was neither a partner nor the owner of the business. All financial transactions of the firm were carried out under the supervision and control of the partners. The attempt to fasten the entire alleged liability upon the applicant is arbitrary and requires detailed examination during trial. He also submits that the alleged amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- mentioned in the FIR is merely an estimated figure based on the complainant’s internal calculations and is not supported by any verified audit or independent financial investigation. The allegations relate to vehicle sales, exchange transactions, registration processes, and financial dealings of the dealership, all of which are based on documentary records such as invoices, bank transactions, registration documents, and financial records. Such documents are already in the possession of the complainant and the investigating agency. He also submits that the applicant was arrested on 16.01.2026 and has remained in judicial 3 custody since then. The applicant had been working with the complainant firm for nearly two years and had managed the dealership operations without any complaint during the said period. The sudden allegations made after internal business disputes indicate mala-fide intention on the part of the complainant. It is further contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as Objector opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. They further submits that from the perusal of the case diary and the evidence collected, it appears that the applicant/accused, while working as General Manager in the partnership firm City Wheels, Jagdalpur, owned by the complainant and his son, allegedly misused his position in relation to the purchase and sale of new and old vehicles of the said firm, vehicle registration, transfer, and collection of down payment amounts through cash as well as bank transactions, and is accused of dishonestly misappropriating and using for his own benefit an amount of approximately Rs. 1.70 crores by cheating the complainant. 1.70 crores by cheating the complainant. Therefore, it is argued that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, particularly the fact that the applicant had been working with the complainant firm for nearly two years and had managed the dealership operations without any complaint during the said period, the sudden allegations made after 4 internal business disputes indicate mala-fide intention on the part of the complainant, further the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2026, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Pradeep Ojha, involved in Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station – Frazerpur (Parpa), District – Bastar (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 5 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) 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 her 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti