1 2026:CGHC:5072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 960 of 2026 Virendra Pratap Purseth S/o Manorath Prasad Purseth Aged About 34 Years R/o Nawapara Gharghoda, Police Station And Tahsil- Gharghoda, District- Raigarh C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Gharghoda, District- Raigarh C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 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. 297/2025 registered at Police Station : Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 09.11.2025 at about 12:04 a.m., the complainant, Rakesh Tiwari, Manager of Shriram Finance RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Gharghoda Branch, lodged a report at Police Outpost Gharghoda alleging that during the period from 12.09.2017 to 15.03.2019, the applicant Virendra Pratap Purseth, along with co-accused persons Khemraj Gupta and Sudhir Nishad, who were posted as Sales Manager and thereafter as Branch Manager at the Gharghoda branch, in connivance with certain brokers and customers, fraudulently procured business loans in the names of about 26 customers by falsely showing the business establishments of other persons as those of the borrowers and getting the same verified through brokers, thereby misappropriating a total loan amount of approximately Rs. 1,30,50,000/- belonging to the company. It is alleged that despite prior caution and instructions to regularize the loan accounts, the accused persons failed to do so, resulting in huge outstanding dues, whereupon an internal inquiry was conducted pursuant to authorization dated 15.01.2025, which revealed the alleged criminal conspiracy and forgery of loan documents for illegal gain. On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing Crime No. 297/2025 was registered at Police Station Gharghoda for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the matter is presently under investigation. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent, having committed no offence whatsoever. It is contended that the applicant was appointed in Shriram Finance, Gharghoda Branch in December 2016, was transferred in April 2018, and was not posted 3 at the said branch during a substantial part of the alleged period, and thus his involvement in the alleged transactions is highly doubtful. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature relating to recovery of loan amounts, for which the company itself has already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the borrowers, and no amount has ever been credited to the applicant’s account. The FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than six years, without any prior inquiry, and the allegations against the applicant are general and omnibus, resting mainly on documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. No incriminating amount or material has been recovered from the applicant, custodial interrogation is not required. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Rajkumar Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 in MCRC No. 9787/2025. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he applicant is in jail since 10.11.2025 while the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that though the charge- sheet has not been filed, but could not dispute the fact that co- accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious 4 and involve a well-planned criminal conspiracy resulting in misappropriation of a huge amount of about Rs. 1,30,50,000/- belonging to a financial institution. It is contended that the applicant, while holding responsible positions in the company, acted in connivance with co-accused persons, brokers and borrowers by forging and fabricating loan documents for illegal gain. The offence pertains to economic fraud affecting public trust and the investigation is still in progress; therefore, at this stage, grant of bail to the applicant may adversely affect the investigation, and hence, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, though the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, but the long and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in respect of transactions pertaining to the period 2017–2019, the documentary nature of the evidence which is already in the custody of the investigating agency. Further, considering the fact that other co-accused person, namely, Rajkumar Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 in MCRC No. 9787/2025, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person, further the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 10.11.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Virendra Pratap Purseth, involved in Crime No. 297/2025 registered at Police Station : Gharghoda, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 6 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan