1 2026:CGHC:26382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 937 of 2026 Varsha Andani W/o Himanshu Brijwani Aged About 29 Years R/o E W S -42 Sec- 3, Devendra Nagar, Ward No.22, Ganj Raipur Chhattisgarh (492009) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station - Vidhan Sabha Raipur Chhattisgarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Muskaan Fatwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.121/2026 registered at Police Station – Vidhansabha, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the brief prosecution case, on 06.04.2026, a written complaint was lodged at Police Station Vidhansabha by the complainant namely Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.06.30 17:54:53 +0530 2 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 member 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. It is contended that the FIR does not contain any allegation against the applicant and all allegations are directed against the principal accused, Manish Vishwas. The applicant is a homemaker and a newly delivered mother, having no role in the affairs or financial management of the complainant company. It is further submitted that she had only a brief professional association with the principal accused during the period 2018 to 2020, during which he gained access to her banking details owing to the trust reposed in him. Counsel submits that if any amount was transferred through the applicant's bank account, the same was done without her knowledge, consent or participation, and she neither handled the company's payroll nor participated in any alleged 3 fraudulent transaction. It is argued that the applicant has not derived any unlawful benefit and that the essential ingredients of criminal intent, knowledge and active participation are completely absent. Mere ownership of the bank account or acquaintance with the principal accused, without any evidence of conscious involvement, cannot fasten criminal liability. It is further submitted that similarly placed co- accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) Nos.742/2026, 833/2026, 800/2026 and 745/2026 and, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant and does not dispute the fact that co- accused have been granted anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the name of the present applicant does not find mention in the FIR, the submission that the applicant is a homemaker and a newly delivered mother, the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the said fact has not been disputed by the learned State Counsel and further, considering the fact that custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not appear necessary at this stage, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Varsha Andani on executing a personal 4 bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (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 their 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 Jyoti