1 CGHC010321882026 2026:CGHC:37168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1359 of 2026 1 - Ganesh Prasad Singh S/o Shri Bhola Nath Singh Aged About 49 Years Occupation Service ( Electricity, Department) Permanent R/o Village Lodhma Tehsil And Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur C.G. Presently R/o Sitapur Tehsil And Police Station Sitapur District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O Police Station Sitapur District Surguja C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. The present is the second application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant in connection with Crime No. 21/2022, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Earlier the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in MCRCA No. 282 of 2022. 3. As per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by Shri Ashutosh Kujur, Additional Charge Assistant Engineer, Sitapur, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation causing a loss of Rs.2,94,29,482/- to the Company. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.2,15,92,052/- was not deposited by the C.G. State Distribution Centre, Sitapur, in the account of the Company, while amounts of Rs.29,26,207/- and Rs.49,11,223/- were allegedly not deposited by the Mainpat and Petla Distribution Centres, respectively. It is further alleged that, upon audit, the aforesaid irregularities were found to be substantiated and, accordingly, Crime No. 21/2022 was registered against the Applicant and the other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged misappropriation or forgery. It is submitted that on 14.10.2021, the Applicant himself detected the irregularity in the accounts/system and immediately informed the higher authorities, pursuant to which a departmental enquiry was instituted. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that during the departmental enquiry it was found that the co- accused/outsource employees, namely Sunil Kumar Kerketta and Shrikant Khalkho, had misused the Applicant's password and 3 committed the alleged irregularities. The Applicant had been providing his password for the purpose of data entry, which was misused by the said employees. The Applicant himself informed the authorities about the irregularity and his statement before the enquiry committee also supports his case. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that co-accused Shrikant Khalkho himself admitted by way of affidavit that, while working as a computer operator, he had committed mistakes in punching the entries and had not deposited the amount with the department. The affidavit of Shivkumar Ekka and the statement of the data entry operator also support the Applicant's case. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is a substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the Applicant's first anticipatory bail application on 25.08.2022. The Applicant has not been arrested for the last three years; meanwhile, the departmental enquiry was completed, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service on 04.08.2023. The departmental enquiry further found no forgery or misappropriation attributable to the Applicant and imposed only the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that co-accused Sunil Kumar Kerketta has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in the connected matter. The Applicant is a regular employee of the Electricity Department, has no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Learned counsel for the Applicant, therefore, submits that, considering the changed circumstances, the 4 departmental enquiry exonerating the Applicant from the allegations of forgery and misappropriation, the material supporting his bona fide conduct, the grant of bail to the co-accused, and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the Applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the case diary is not available with him. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Admittedly, the Applicant's first anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 passed in MCRCA No. 282 of 2022. Though the Applicant has relied upon the subsequent departmental enquiry, his reinstatement in service and the grant of bail to co-accused Sunil Kumar Kerketta, these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not constitute such a substantial change in circumstances as would warrant a different view in the present application. The allegations against the Applicant relate to serious financial irregularities involving a substantial amount of Rs.2,94,29,482/- and the Applicant is alleged to have been entrusted with duties connected with the relevant transactions. The defence sought to be raised by the Applicant, including the alleged misuse of his password and the findings of the departmental enquiry, are matters which require proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot, at this stage, be conclusively relied upon for granting anticipatory bail. 9. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegations, the 5 substantial amount involved and the fact that the Applicant's earlier application has already been rejected, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant- Ganesh Prasad Singh, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.21/2022, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi