1 2026:CGHC:26894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 983 of 2026 1 - Neeru Vishwas W/o Late Sunil Kumar Biswas Aged About 60 Years R/o- Mahra Para, Ward No. 31, Bajirao Mahra Para Raigarh, Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) Adhar Card No. 694488548047 2 - Madhu Vishwas W/o Manish Biswas Aged About 38 Years R/o 401 Block, Sector- 03 Sai Mandir Shivan Nagar, Khamtarai, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) Aadhar No. 756917289835 ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O) P.S.- Vidhansabha, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas and Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 121/2026 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.02 11:19:16 +0530 2 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 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 Rs.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 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicants are simple household ladies and are neither employees of the complainant company nor associated with its managerial, financial or administrative affairs. They never had access to or control over the company's salary software, bank accounts or net banking facilities. It is further submitted that, except for the allegation that certain amounts were transferred into their bank accounts by co- accused Manish Vishwas, there is no specific allegation or material to show that the applicants prepared any forged document, operated the complainant company's accounts, or participated in any criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel submits that mere receipt of money in the bank accounts of the applicants, in the absence of any evidence establishing their knowledge of the alleged fraud or active participation therein, does not constitute the offences alleged against them. It is further submitted that the investigation is predominantly documentary in nature and is based on company records, salary registers, bank statements, digital records and other documentary evidence, all of which have already been collected by the Investigating Officer. The concerned bank accounts have also been subjected to investigation by issuance of notice to the bank, thereby securing the financial trail, and as such, custodial interrogation of the applicants is neither necessary nor justified. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 is an elderly lady aged about 60 years, suffering from hypertension, dyslipidemia and other age-related ailments, requiring continuous medical supervision and treatment, and her custodial arrest would seriously jeopardize her health. Learned counsel further submits that 4 several co-accused, namely Smt. Bandana Chaudhari, Ghanshyam Agrawal, Robin Kumar Agrawal, Neelam Agrawal and Kamlesh Sao, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court in connection with the same crime, and the role attributed to the present applicants is similar to, or even less serious than, that of the said co- accused. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of parity. It is lastly submitted that the applicants are ready and willing to furnish adequate sureties, shall cooperate with the investigation, shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence any witness, and shall abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicants be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the present case involves a serious economic offence relating to the embezzlement of approximately Rs.3.38 crores. It is contended that substantial amounts of the misappropriated money have been traced to the bank account of the present applicant, prima facie indicating her involvement in the conspiracy. It is further submitted that the applicant's explanation regarding receipt of the amount is a matter of defence, which can be examined only during trial. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation to facilitate a fair and effective investigation, recover the misappropriated amount and ascertain the involvement of other accused persons, it is prayed that the application for anticipatory bail be rejected. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the material available on record, and further taking into consideration that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Ghanshyam Agrawal and Bandana Chaudhari, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 745 of 2026 and MCRCA No. 742 of 2026, respectively, vide common order dated 13.05.2026, this Court is of the opinion that the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Neeru Vishwas & Madhu Vishwas 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:- (a) The applicants 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of her 6 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 themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav