1 CGHC010282032026 2026:CGHC:31745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6696 of 2026 Sagar Tiwari S/o Bhagirathi Tiwari Aged About 31 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, P. S. Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (As Per The Cause Title Of Bail Rejection Order (Annexure A / 1) In Page No. 8 Of Bail Application) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shalin Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 357/2025, registered at Police Station- Vidhansabha, District Raipur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’) RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.07.2025 and 30.07.2025, the complainant, Anurag Agrawal, Director of Chemplast Products Private Limited, lodged written reports at Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, alleging that the applicant, Sagar Tiwari, who had been working as the Chief Accountant of the company since 01.08.2022, was entrusted with the responsibility of managing and approving the company’s online banking transactions. It is alleged that, by misusing the authority and trust reposed in him, the applicant dishonestly transferred substantial amounts from the company’s bank accounts to the accounts of his relatives and other known persons through a series of unauthorized online transactions. Initially, the alleged misappropriation was reported to be Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, which was subsequently revised by the complainant to Rs. 2,02,48,916/- upon further scrutiny of the company’s financial records. During investigation, examination of the bank statements revealed multiple transfers from the company’s accounts to various third-party accounts, and it was further alleged that part of the misappropriated amount was routed through such accounts and thereafter transferred to the accounts of the applicant’s family members. The prosecution further alleges that a portion of the embezzled amount was utilized for the purchase of immovable property in the name of the applicant’s mother and that some of the funds were later returned to the company’s account. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No. 357/2025 was registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3 During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 23.07.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the competent Court. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that his arrest is based merely on suspicion without there being any cogent material directly connecting him with the alleged misappropriation. It is submitted that the applicant joined the complainant company as an Accountant on 01.08.2022 and his duties were confined to maintaining books of accounts and accounting records of the company. He also submits that the applicant was not authorized to independently operate the company’s bank accounts, make online payments, approve financial transactions, or exercise any control over the company’s financial affairs, and therefore the allegations of unauthorized transfer of funds are prima facie false and baseless. He further submits that the company was subjected to regular annual audits conducted by its Chartered Accountant, and despite such audits, no discrepancy or financial irregularity pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- was ever detected or reflected in any audit report, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and enjoys a good reputation in society. He further submits that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 23.07.2025, i.e., for more than one year. It is further submitted 4 that the trial is progressing at a slow pace, out of the total 18 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only one witness, namely the complainant Anurag Agrawal (PW-1), has been examined so far and even his cross-examination has not yet been completed. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. He also submits that the continued incarceration of the applicant has adversely affected his physical and mental health, social reputation, and family life. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, and in his absence, the family is facing severe financial hardship, particularly as his father is in poor health and is unable to support the family. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the allegations against the applicant are extremely serious in nature involving criminal breach of trust and large-scale misappropriation of company funds. It is contended that the applicant was working as the Chief Accountant of the complainant company and was entrusted with the responsibility of handling and approving online banking transactions, which position he allegedly misused for his personal gain. Learned State Counsel submits that during investigation it was revealed from the bank statements that the applicant had transferred huge amounts from the company’s accounts to the accounts of his relatives and associates, including approximately 5 Rs. 30.55 lakhs to the account of his brother Rishi Dubey, about Rs. 45 lakhs to the account of Kailash Khushlani, Rs. 25.75 lakhs to the account of Dharmendra Dewangan, about Rs. 21 lakhs to the account of Laxmi Narayan Dewangan, Rs. 25 lakhs to the account of Raju Das Manikpuri and Rs. 25 lakhs to the account of Alina Dewangan. It is further submitted that the total amount found to have been misappropriated during investigation is about Rs. 1.91 crores, out of which only about Rs. 40.04 lakhs was subsequently returned to the company’s account. Learned State Counsel further points out that the investigation has disclosed that part of the misappropriated amount was routed through the accounts of the applicant’s relatives and acquaintances and that immovable property was also purchased in the name of the applicant’s mother from the proceeds of the alleged embezzlement. It is submitted that the applicant’s mother and brother are yet to be fully examined with regard to the money trail and recovery of the remaining amount is still a matter of concern. Learned State Counsel therefore argues that, considering the magnitude of the financial fraud, the breach of trust committed by the applicant while holding a responsible position in the company, the well-planned manner in which the transactions were allegedly carried out, and the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or hampering further proceedings if released on bail, this is not a fit case for grant of bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged financial embezzlement, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the material collected during the course of investigation, and the record prima facie reveals that the applicant, while working as the Chief Accountant of the complainant company and being entrusted with the responsibility of handling and approving online banking transactions, allegedly misused his position and diverted substantial amounts from the company’s accounts to the accounts of his brother, mother, and several other persons known to him. The investigation further indicates that amounts aggregating to approximately Rs. 1.91 crores were transferred through a series of transactions, whereas only about Rs. 40.04 lakhs were subsequently returned to the company. The prosecution has also placed material to suggest that a part of the alleged misappropriated amount was routed through the accounts of the applicant’s relatives and acquaintances and that immovable property was purchased in the name of the applicant’s mother from the proceeds of the alleged offence. Thus, the allegations do not disclose an isolated transaction but prima facie indicate a systematic and well-planned misuse of the financial authority entrusted to the applicant. Though it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that he has remained in custody since 23.07.2025 and that only one out of eighteen prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, considering the serious nature of the accusation, the huge amount involved, and the money trail leading to the accounts of the applicant’s family members and associates, this 7 Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sagar Tiwari, involved in Crime No. 357/2025, registered at Police Station- Vidhansabha, District Raipur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan