1 2026:CGHC:22679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 745 of 2026 • Ghanshyam Agarwal S/o Om Prakash Agarwal Aged About 36 Years R/o Jagannath Colony, V.T.C. Sarbahal, Post Jharsuguda District- Jharsuguda (Odisha) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate For Objector : Mr. Aayush Bhatia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 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 him arrest in connection with Crime No. 121/2026 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) for the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that on 06.04.2026, a written complaint was lodged at Police Station Vidhansabha by the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.15 08:32:47 +0530 2 complainant namely Balram Singh Kshatri, Deputy General Manager of Mosh Varya Infrastructure Limited, alleging that one Manish Vishwas, who was working as Senior Manager (HR) in the company from 01.04.2021 to 29.03.2026, had misused his official position by preparing forged and fabricated salary records in the names of former employees who had already left the company and, by adopting such fraudulent means, embezzled an amount of approximately ₹3,38,34,846/- over a period of five years. During the internal inquiry conducted by the company, it was further revealed that the said Manish Vishwas had transferred the misappropriated amounts into the bank accounts of his family members and certain associates, including the present applicant Bandana Chaudhary, thereby obtaining unlawful financial gains. It was also alleged that the accused Manish Vishwas had committed serious economic and cyber offences by misusing online net banking facilities and causing substantial financial loss to the company. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR bearing Crime No. 121/2026 was registered against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS. Thereafter, apprehending her arrest in the aforesaid crime number, the present applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no offence, much less the offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, is made out against him. It is submitted that the entire allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the main accused Manish Vishwas and no specific overt act has been attributed to the present applicant showing him 3 direct involvement in the alleged embezzlement or conspiracy. He further submits that the applicant is engaged in the business of providing vehicles on monthly rental basis and, in connection therewith, accused Manish Vishwas, proprietor of Ram Steel & Infra Private Limited, had approached the applicant for hiring vehicles on rent, pursuant to which the applicant had provided a Mahindra Scorpio-N bearing registration No. CG-13-BE-9652 belonging to him and one another vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift bearing registration No. CG- 13-BG-6094 on rental basis, for which rental amounts were transferred into his bank account. It is further submitted that initially the rent was transferred from the account of Ram Steel, however, when certain payments were received from other companies, the applicant made inquiries from Manish Vishwas, who informed him that the said companies also belonged to him and were operating from the same registered address. It is contended that the applicant was neither an employee of the complainant company nor associated with its employees or family members of the accused Manish Vishwas and had no role whatsoever in salary disbursement, preparation of financial records, or management of the company. He further submits that the main accused Manish Vishwas has already executed an affidavit dated 02.04.2026 admitting his guilt and acknowledging that he had fraudulently disbursed salary amounts into the accounts of former employees, and has also issued a cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- as security towards repayment, which clearly indicates that the dispute pertains to the internal financial dealings between the complainant company and the main accused. It is further argued that the investigating agency has failed to point out any specific transaction, forged document, or material showing direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and even 4 assuming that some amount was received in the applicant’s account, the same was purely towards vehicle rental charges, which were further transferred to the actual vehicle owner after deducting service charges. It is also submitted that the applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of him alleged association with the main accused, without any substantive evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the present case pertains to a serious economic offence involving large-scale financial embezzlement of approximately Rs.3,38,34,846/-, committed in a well-planned and systematic manner over a prolonged period of time by the main accused Manish Vishwas in connivance with other co-accused persons, including the present applicant. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, substantial amounts of the embezzled money have been traced to the bank account of the present applicant and the transactions prima facie indicate him active involvement in the conspiracy. It is further submitted that the plea taken by the applicant regarding receipt of money towards vehicle rental charges is a matter of defence, which requires thorough investigation and cannot be conclusively examined at this stage. Learned counsel further submit that the offences alleged are grave in nature involving criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating and cyber-related financial fraud causing huge monetary loss to the complainant company, and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for proper investigation, recovery of the misappropriated amount and to 5 ascertain the involvement of other persons connected with the offence. Hence, it is prayed that the application for anticipatory bail be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material available on record, the fact that the primary allegations regarding preparation of forged salary records and alleged embezzlement are mainly against the principal accused Manish Vishwas, who is stated to have admitted his involvement by way of affidavit and has also issued a cheque towards repayment/settlement of the alleged amount, coupled with the submission that the amount received in the account of the present applicant was towards vehicle rental transactions, and further considering that the applicant was neither an employee of the complainant company nor holding any managerial or financial position therein, that no specific overt act or forged document has been attributed to him showing direct involvement in the alleged manipulation of salary records, and also taking into account that the applicant is having no criminal antecedents. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ghanshyam Agrawal on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 6 (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaishali