1 2026:CGHC:25653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5468 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Prasad S/o Late S.N. Prasad Aged About 38 Years R/o H.S.C.L. Colony, House No. 124-B, Ruwabandha Sector, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Newai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 62/2026 registered at Police Station- Newai, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint dated 27.01.2026 submitted by the In-charge Registrar of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Police Station Newai, District Durg, initiated an inquiry into allegations of financial irregularities, forgery and embezzlement of fees collected from Ph.D. research scholars of the University. During a preliminary inquiry conducted by a two-member committee constituted by the University administration, it was found that an amount of Rs.9,44,500/- had allegedly been misappropriated. The inquiry revealed that fee receipts issued to various research scholars by Sunil Kumar Prasad, Junior Consultant in the Ph.D. Branch, were either forged or issued against cash collections that were not duly deposited in the University account. During the course of inquiry, Sunil Kumar Prasad admitted to having received cash from candidates and depositing a portion of the amount into his personal bank account. He further stated that after collecting the money, he had handed over the same to Ankit Arora, the then Acting Registrar, and that receipts were subsequently provided to him; however, no supporting evidence was furnished in this regard. In view of the findings of the inquiry committee and the resolution passed by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 22.01.2026, a decision was taken to lodge an FIR and initiate legal action against the persons involved. Accordingly, offences under Sections 316(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were registered and taken up for investigation, during which the present applicant came to be implicated and arrested. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is 3 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false, baseless and devoid of any substance and that no offence, as alleged by the prosecution, is made out against him from the material available on record. He further submits that the applicant has neither committed any act of cheating, forgery or misappropriation nor has he derived any unlawful benefit from the alleged transactions. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent and convincing evidence directly connecting the applicant with the alleged embezzlement of University funds and his implication is based merely on suspicion and conjectures. He also submits that the applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 09.02.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious economic offence relating to financial fraud, forgery and embezzlement of University funds collected from Ph.D. research scholars. It is contended that during the inquiry conducted by the University and the subsequent investigation, material was collected indicating misappropriation of a substantial amount of 4 Rs.9,44,500/-, and the applicant’s role has surfaced in connection with the said transactions. Learned State counsel further submits that economic offences are grave in nature and affect the integrity of public institutions and, therefore, are required to be viewed seriously. It is argued that the investigation has revealed prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences and, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the amount involved and the manner in which the offence was allegedly committed, it is prayed that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the allegations against the applicant are that the applicant was involved in the misappropriation and embezzlement of Rs.9,44,500/- collected from Ph.D. research scholars of Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University by issuing forged or unauthorized fee receipts and thereby causing financial loss to the University, but it is to be noted that the applicant is in jail since 09.02.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Sunil Kumar Prasad, involved in Crime No. 62/2026 registered at Police Station- Newai, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 sufficient 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 6 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office 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