1 CGHC010260662026 2026:CGHC:28456 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1062 of 2026 Raman Shrivastava S/o Shri Late Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava Aged About 49 Years R/o Permanent Address-656/6/P/65 Unity City, Near S.S.Public School, Kalyanpur, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), Present Address- Machinery Market, Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Khamtarai, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 526/2026 registered at Police Station, Khamtarai, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant Ashok Kumar Manu lodged a written complaint alleging that the applicant Raman Shrivastava, Marketing Head, along with co-accused Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Assistant Manager (All India), and Subodh Kumar Shrivastava, Marketing Executive, entered into a criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the complainant company's materials and funds while discharging their marketing and distributor management responsibilities. It is alleged that the accused persons prepared a fake purchase order in the name of Radharani Enterprises, Sambalpur, and dishonestly caused material worth Rs. 33,536/ to be dispatched without any genuine order. Upon inquiry, the firm allegedly denied placing any such order, leading the complainant to suspect that the accused had conspired to divert and misappropriate the material. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons appointed Sharda Enterprises and Suman Enterprises as authorised distributors at Ujjain and induced them to procure goods worth approximately Rs. 20,00,000/- by falsely assuring regular sales. Thereafter, they allegedly prepared a forged estimate in the name of Ambar Electric & Electronic, Bhopal, using its GSTIN, causing Sharda Enterprises to dispatch goods worth Rs. 3,34,206/-without any genuine purchase order. Subsequent inquiry revealed that Ambar Electric & Electronic had never placed such an order, and the material was allegedly diverted to a godown at Bhopal for sale in the local market, where it was later seized by the police. The complaint also alleges that the applicant misappropriated Rs. 5,000/- received as advance from Agrawal & Company, Akaltara, and dishonestly received Rs. 48,144/- from Rajnandani Enterprises, Ranchi, in his personal bank account instead of the company's account. It is further alleged that the applicant collected Rs. 97,000/- from the complainant's authorised Distributor, 3 NCR Powertech Solution, Bhubaneswar, but failed to deposit the amount with the company. The complaint also alleges that he failed to repay personal advances amounting to Rs. 4,18,839/-, misappropriated Rs. 1,03,940/- from office construction funds, and retained the company- issued mobile phone and SIM card. Similar allegations were made against Sudhir Kumar Gupta regarding marketing expenses and retention of company property. According to the complainant, after these irregularities came to light, all the accused absconded between November 2025 and January 2026. It is alleged that the accused persons collectively caused wrongful loss to the company, with the applicant allegedly misappropriating Rs. 6,72,923/, Sudhir Kumar Gupta Rs. 3,34,206/-, and Subodh Kumar Shrivastava Rs. 33,536/-. On the basis of written report lodged by the complainant, the FIR bearing Crime No. 526/2026 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 316(4), 318(4), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur. 3. Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and is absolutely innocent. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Before joining the complainant's organization, the applicant was employed at the M/s A-1 Institution in Lucknow. The applicant worked as a salesman in the said institution. The job of all salesmen, including the applicant, was to collect orders and hand them over to the employees working in the office of the complainant's organization. The complainant never gave any money to the applicant for personal expenses; instead, the applicant was provided with funds solely for the operation of the company. He started work for the complainant company namely Rudraksha Engineering and Construction Manu India Pvt. Ltd. 4 from November 2024 and salary was also paid to him but due to some technical issue, the appointment letter was issued on 01.04.2025 to show that the applicant is working for the company from the financial year 2025-26. The applicant took leave to attend her niece marriage of which he did not receive any reply and soon after the applicant stayed at home due to a spinal cord issue, and this information was also conveyed by the applicant to the complainant through a phone call received from the company. As the complainant was not giving salary to the applicant and some other employee brought by the applicant from Uttar Pradesh to work in the complainant company and his application for grant of leave was also not replied by the complainant, moreover, request of the applicant for providing some financial health for treatment of the applicant was neither accepted nor reply by the complainant, therefore, the applicant joined another work in Nursing Traders from the month of May 2026, and resigned from the complainant company on 01.05.2026. 4. Mr. Verma further submits that the subject matter of the FIR is a pure civil dispute concerning alleged financial irregularities and employment- related grievances, which has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure upon the applicant. The allegations primarily revolve around claims of non-repayment of advance, misappropriation of sales proceeds, and recovery of company property, which are essentially matters of civil liability and contractual obligations between an employer and employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that mere breach of contract or civil liability, without a clear criminal intention, does not constitute a criminal offence and the appellant made their case for grant of anticipatory bail. Contrary to the prosecution's narrative of absconding, the applicant had duly informed the complainant's company about his spinal cord issue and his 5 consequent stay at home, which demonstrates his bona fide and lack of any intention to flee from the process of law. This communication, which is a matter of record, clearly establishes that the applicant was not attempting to evade his responsibilities but was instead facing a genuine medical emergency. This fact significantly undermines the prosecution's claim of dishonest intention and bolsters the applicant's case for pre- arrest protection. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen with deep roots in the community and no criminal antecedents. He undertakes to join the investigation as and when required and to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in every possible manner. The allegations are largely documentary in nature, and the applicant's cooperation would be sufficient for a fair investigation, without the need for custodial interrogation. The applicant has clean antecedents and is a permanent resident of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, with deep familiar and social roots. He undertakes to abide by all conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose and not leaving the country without the Court's permission. The applicant is not a flight risk and poses no threat to the investigation or the witnesses. Granting him anticipatory bail would not impede the course of justice but would, on the contrary, protect his valuable right to liberty, which should not be curtailed without a compelling necessity. Since the registration of the FIR on 13.06.2026, the investigation is still pending and no charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court, which clearly indicates that the Investigating Officer has not been able to gather sufficient incriminating material against the applicant even after a considerable period of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that custodial interrogation is not a routine requirement and should be resorted to only when the investigating agency has concrete material to suggest that the accused 6 would not cooperate or is likely to tamper with evidence. In the absence of a charge-sheet, the applicant's custodial arrest would serve no fruitful purpose and would only result in pre-trial incarceration, which is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The applicant undertakes to join the investigation as and when required, and his cooperation would be sufficient for the investigating agency to complete the probe without the need for his custodial arrest. The pendency of investigation without any charge-sheet fortifies the applicant's case for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. Verma next submits that the applicant has never been involved in any criminal activity in his entire life and has no criminal case registered against him either before or after the registration of the present FIR. The applicant is a respectable citizen aged 49 years, having deep roots in society, and has been earning his livelihood through honest means. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court have consistently held that the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be denied to a first-time offender, especially when the allegations do not involve heinous offences or a threat to society. The grant of anticipatory bail to a person with clean antecedents would not defeat the ends of justice but would, on the contrary, protect his fundamental right to personal liberty. Moreover, being a first-time offender, the applicant is not a flight risk and is unlikely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. He is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose. The fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents distinguishes his case from habitual offenders and makes him a fit candidate for the exercise of this Hon'ble Court's discretionary powers in his favour. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 7 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that though the applicant is not having any criminal antecedent, but looking to the gravity of the offence, this application be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 8. The allegations against the applicant arise out of his employment with the complainant company and pertain to alleged financial irregularities, preparation of fake purchase orders, misappropriation of sale proceeds and company funds. The prosecution case is primarily founded upon documentary evidence such as purchase orders, invoices, account statements and other business records, which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. At this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate that custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable for carrying forward the investigation. The applicant has denied the allegations and has taken the defence that the dispute is essentially an outcome of employment-related differences and has been given a criminal colour. Though the correctness of such defence cannot be examined in detail at this stage, the same raises issues which can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. There is no material available on record to suggest that he is a habitual offender or that he has previously misused the process of law. The applicant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. In the facts of the present case, the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant may not cooperate with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions while granting the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8 9. Considering the nature of the accusations, the documentary character of the evidence, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the fact that the investigation is still in progress and the applicant has undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the opinion of this Court, the interest of the prosecution can be sufficiently protected by imposing appropriate conditions, and the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Raman Shrivastava on executing a personal bond with one local 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 his adhaar card alongwith a colored 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 Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.10 11:25:21 +0530