1 CGHC010231862026 2026:CGHC:28872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 948 of 2026 Deepak Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Daroga Para, Masta Gali, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana In-Charge, P.S. City Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 187/2026, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 338, 336(3),340 of the BNS and Section 60 of the I.T. Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.10 17:30:26 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the on 24.03.2026 the Complainant namely Kamal Kishore Shah has lodged written report that his office named as Shri Ram Transport situated at Jindal Road Dhimrapur Raigarh and the present applicant is working in his office. On26.02.2026 when he was making payment to the transporters, he saw that 2-3 Voucher was prepared of one number, he called the present applicant and asked him strictly, the present applicant confess that along with one Prakash Mishra, he was preparing many Voucher of one number and also preparing duplicate voucher and endorse number of original Voucher, in this manner, they caused a loss of Rs. 32,00,000/- to the Firm. 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 applicant is a young person and his continued incarceration would seriously prejudice his future and adversely affect his life. Learned counsel further submits that the co- accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and, therefore, the case of the present applicant deserves similar consideration. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses, and he is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds, it is prayed 3 that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is one of the beneficiaries of the fraudulent transactions and that the defalcated amount was credited to his bank account. It is further submitted that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who was granted bail on the ground that she is a lady. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the specific allegations that the applicant was one of the beneficiaries of the fraudulent transactions and received the defalcated amount in his bank account, the alleged misappropriation of approximately Rs.32,00,000/- by preparing duplicate transport vouchers bearing the same serial numbers, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the seriousness of the economic offence alleged to have been committed in a well-planned and systematic manner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. This Court further finds that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable 4 from that of the co-accused whose bail application was allowed, as the said co-accused was granted bail primarily on the ground that she was a lady. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Deepak Sharma, involved in Crime No. 187/2026, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 338, 336(3),340 of the BNS and Section 60 of the I.T. Act, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav