1 CGHC010266642026 2026:CGHC:31225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1125 of 2026 Dhaneshwar Sahu S/o Shankar Das Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o. Of Sewa Sahakari Samitee Mudipar, Police Station Gatapar, Dist. Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, Police Station - Gatapar Dist. Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Guru along with Mr. Ajay Mahakunda, Advocates appear through Video Conferencing. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 22.07.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 3rd anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.23 10:57:08 +0530 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.27/2024, registered at Police Station – Gatapar, District Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC. 1st application was rejected on merits vide order dated 23.07.2024 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.811/2024 and 2nd was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C(A) No.337/2026. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by Prakash Chand Mahobiya, Branch Manager, District Central Cooperative Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgaon, at Police Station Gatapar on 28.06.2024, the present FIR was registered. It is alleged that the present Applicant, who is Assistant Manager of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Mudhipar, in connivance with other co-accused persons, failed to deposit in the bank the amount collected from 214 farmers towards loan repayment and share recovery. It is alleged that against the total amount of Rs.1,09,44,706/- collected from the farmers, only Rs.83,838/- was deposited in the Society and the remaining amount of Rs.1,08,61,268/- was dishonestly misappropriated by the Applicant and the co-accused. On the basis of these 3 allegations, offences mentioned above, were registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application. 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 earlier anticipatory bail application came to be rejected as, at the relevant time, the Applicant was in a coma due to severe injuries and was, therefore, unable to properly instruct his counsel regarding the true facts of the case. It is further submitted that the records of the District Central Cooperative Bank itself reveal that the Chief Executive Officer had issued a show-cause notice to the Branch Manager pointing out serious lapses in supervision and monitoring, which prima facie indicate the responsibility of the Branch Manager, who has subsequently shifted the blame upon the present Applicant by lodging the FIR. It is argued that at the time of registration of the FIR, the Applicant was bedridden and undergoing treatment, the entire case rests upon documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency and no custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required. It is also submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to take quite considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific allegation that the Applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,08,61,268/- collected from 214 farmers, the fact that the investigation is still in progress and further considering that no substantial change in circumstances has been pointed out after rejection of the first anticipatory bail application on merits and withdrawal of the subsequent anticipatory bail application so as to warrant reconsideration of the matter and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Dhaneshwar Sahu, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.27/2024, registered at Police Station – Gatapar, District Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, 5 Gandai (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC, is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya