1 2026:CGHC:26304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5125 of 2026 K. Vaijanti Reddy D/o K. Adi Narayan Reddy Aged About 34 Years R/o Shivnagar Sector 1, Siddhi Vinayak, Near Yadav Provision Store P.S. Khamtarai Distt- Raipur (C.G.) (Name D/o Wrongly Mention In Order Sheet Correct Name Is Mentioned Here ) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Aayush Bhatiya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.121/2026, registered at Police Station- Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 06.04.2026, a written complaint was lodged by the Deputy General Manager (HR) of Mowsharya Infrastructure Limited alleging that co-accused Manish Biswas, while working as Senior Manager (HR), had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared forged salary sheets in the names of former employees who had already left the company and by abusing his official position, misappropriated an amount of Rs.3,38,34,846/- over a period of approximately five years. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that the misappropriated amount was transferred into the bank accounts of Manish Biswas, his family members, relatives and other associates, including the present applicant. The co-accused Manish Biswas, by way of a sworn affidavit dated 02.04.2026 as well as his memorandum statement, admitted to having prepared forged salary records and diverted the embezzled amount into various bank accounts, including that of the present applicant. Further, the present applicant, namely K. Vaijanti Reddy, in her memorandum statement, admitted that an amount of Rs.18,62,188/- was credited into her bank accounts by co-accused Manish Biswas during the period from 2025 to 2026 and that the said amount was subsequently transferred back to Manish Biswas through UPI transactions and cash, while retaining a commission of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the material collected during investigation prima facie reveals the active involvement of the present applicant in facilitating the laundering and concealment of the embezzled amount. Accordingly, the aforementioned offences 3 have been registered against the applicant. 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 main allegations regarding preparation of forged salary records and embezzlement of funds are directed solely against the main accused, Manish Biswas. The only allegation against the present applicant is that certain amounts were credited into her bank accounts by the main accused, however, no specific overt act has been attributed to her showing her involvement in the preparation of forged documents or in the alleged conspiracy. It is further submitted that the applicant's own memorandum statement reveals that her Bank of Maharashtra account was being operated by the main accused himself and that the amounts credited into her HDFC Bank account were returned to him through UPI transactions and cash, thereby demonstrating that the applicant neither exercised control over the alleged funds nor derived any substantial benefit therefrom. He further submits that the entire case against the applicant rests solely upon memorandum statements recorded by the police, which are inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and no recovery has been effected from the applicant. It is also argued that the main accused has already admitted his guilt and has issued a security cheque towards repayment. Placing reliance on the principle of parity, learned counsel submits that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to similarly situated co- accused persons, namely, Ghanshyam Agrawal in MCRCA No. 745 4 of 2026 and Bandana Chaudhari in MCRCA No. 742 of 2026, vide common order dated 13.05.2026. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Raipur and is employed in the private sector; therefore, there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. and is languishing in jail since 29.04.2026 and in the present case, charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, he prays to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that no substantial change in circumstances or new development has taken place after rejection of the applicant's bail application by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that though the applicant has sought parity with co-accused Ghanshyam Agrawal (MCRCA No. 745 of 2026) and Bandana Chaudhari (MCRCA No. 742 of 2026), who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 but the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing and is clearly distinguishable. They further submits that the present applicant had knowingly allowed the main accused, Manish Biswas, to use her bank accounts for routing the embezzled amount and, in consideration thereof, she used to receive commission ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the applicant was an active participant in the alleged offence. Considering the gravity and magnitude of the economic offence and the specific role attributed 5 to the applicant, it is prayed that the bail application of the applicant is liable to 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, nature of allegations, material available on record and the fact that the present applicant is a lady and as per the prosecution case itself she had permitted the main accused Manish Biswas to use her bank accounts for routing the alleged embezzled amount in lieu of commission ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month however, the fact that similarly situated co-accused namely Ghanshyam Agrawal in MCRCA No.745 of 2026 and Bandana Chaudhari in MCRCA No.742 of 2026 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026, further considering that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the applicant is in jail since 29.04.2026 thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let applicant- K. Vaijanti Reddy, involved in Crime No.121/2026, registered at Police Station- Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, be released on bail on her 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 6 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of 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. 9. 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 Kunal