1 2026:CGHC:26360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5377 of 2026 Monika Sahu W/o Yogesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Pooja Niketan, Lochan Nagar, Raigarh, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO P/s Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate through V.C. For Non-applicant : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Aayush Bhatia, 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. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06.04.2026, a written complaint was lodged by the Deputy General Manager (HR) of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Mowsharya Infrastructure Limited alleging that co-accused Manish Biswas, while working as Senior Manager (HR), had dishonestly and fraudulently prepared forged salary records 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 embezzled amount was transferred into the bank accounts of Manish Biswas, his family members, relatives and other associates, including the present applicant. Co-accused Manish Biswas, by way of a sworn affidavit dated 02.04.2026, admitted that he had prepared forged salary records and diverted the misappropriated amount into various bank accounts, including that of the present applicant. Further, during investigation, the present applicant, Monika Sahu, in her memorandum statement, admitted that an amount of Rs.28,90,032/- was credited into her four bank accounts by co- accused Manish Biswas during the period from 2022 to 2026 and that the said amount was subsequently transferred back to him through UPI transactions, cash and cheques, while retaining commission at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per lakh. The applicant further admitted that the transactions were carried out through her bank accounts over a period of four years. Thus, the material collected during investigation prima facie reveals the active involvement of the present applicant in facilitating the routing and concealment of the embezzled amount. Accordingly, the aforementioned offences have been registered against the 3 applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against her. It is submitted that the applicant, a 39-year-old woman working as a beautician, was merely looking for an additional source of income when the main accused, Manish Biswas, being an old acquaintance, misused the trust reposed in him and induced the applicant to invest money through him. It is further submitted that the applicant was merely used as a tool by the main accused in the alleged transactions and had no knowledge regarding the source of the funds. He further submits that the main accused had also engaged the applicant for data entry work and used to pay her remuneration for the same and that the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the applicant and the main accused prima facie indicate that the applicant was working remotely on his instructions and was made to believe that the transactions were in connection with investment activities. It is also submitted that the aforesaid facts were specifically brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer as well as the Police Commissioner; however, the same have not been duly considered during investigation. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since 29.04.2026. It is also argued that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. Placing reliance on the principle of parity, learned counsel submits that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been 4 granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.742 of 2026 and MCRCA No.745 of 2026 vide separate orders dated 13.05.2026. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged 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 persons who were granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No.742 of 2026 and MCRCA No.745 of 2026 vide separate orders dated 13.05.2026, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing and is clearly distinguishable. Learned State counsel submits that as per the material collected during investigation, an amount of Rs.28,90,032/- was routed through the bank accounts of the present applicant and as per her own memorandum statement, she had transferred the said amount to the main accused, Manish Biswas, through UPI transactions, cash and cheques while retaining commission at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per lakh. It is further submitted that the applicant had knowingly permitted the main accused to use her bank accounts for routing and concealing the embezzled amount and therefore, prima facie, she was an active participant in the commission of the offence. Considering the gravity and magnitude of the economic offence involving misappropriation of a huge amount and the specific role attributed to the applicant, it 5 is prayed that the application for 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, nature of allegations, material available on record and the fact that the present applicant is a 39-year-old lady having no criminal antecedents, the plea of the applicant that she was made to believe by the principal accused Manish Biswas that the transactions were in connection with investment activities and that she was also working as a data entry operator on his instructions, 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 separate orders 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- Monika Sahu, 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