1 CGHC010314732026 2026:CGHC:36591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1322 of 2026 Ravishankar Diwan Son Of Shri Nirmal Das Aged About 30 Years Resident Of 149(1), Basti Para, Birda, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Dhamdha, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. This 7rst anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been 7led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 176/2026 registered at Police Station Dhamdha, District - Durg, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Ashok Kumar Verma, Save Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., submitted a written complaint dated 04.07.2026 before the Station House O=cer, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Police Station Dhamdha, stating that his company is working as a Business Correspondent/partner with Suryoday Small Finance Bank, under which small loans are provided to women. The Dhamdha Branch operates within a radius of 30–35 kilometres of the Dhamdha area. At the said branch, Ravi Shankar Diwan, the then Branch Manager, Anil Vishwakarma, Devvrat Kaushal and Sandeep Khutiyare were working. During the audit of the Dhamdha Branch conducted in May 2026, irregularities were found in the loan amounts, instalments and loan closure amounts of the customers by the aforesaid employees. In this regard, notices were issued to the said employees requiring them to submit their replies and deposit the total amount of irregularity, but the employees neither submitted any reply to the notices nor deposited the amount of irregularity and instead left their employment on their own. During the internal audit of the branch and scrutiny of the records, serious 7nancial irregularities and acts of fraud came to light. The audit revealed that the aforesaid persons, in furtherance of their common criminal intention, had dishonestly misappropriated and misused the loan disbursement amounts of the customers, monthly installment collections, loan closure payments, ATM cards and the money entrusted to them. It was also found that the accused persons had unauthorisedly used the ATM cards and banking information of the customers and with an intention to conceal their acts, had manipulated and forged the records. As per the investigation conducted by the company, approximately 267 customers were a:ected by the said fraud and an amount of approximately 3 Rs.1,11,93,173/- was misappropriated. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Crime No.176/2026 has been registered at Police Station Dhamdha against the applicant/accused and the aforesaid three co-accused persons for the o:ences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. As per the statement of internal auditor Vinay Kumar Banchhor available in the case diary, the audit of the Dhamdha Branch was conducted in May–June 2026. During the audit, the ATM Register, Collection Register and other necessary records were not found available and serious 7nancial irregularities were noticed in the records of the branch. As per the audit report, the applicant Ravi Shankar Diwan, who was working as Branch Manager during the relevant period, collected a total amount of Rs.58,599/- towards EMIs from 10 customers, out of which only Rs.10,549/- was deposited in the bank and the remaining amount of Rs.48,050/- was not deposited. Similarly, out of Rs.5,856/- deposited by one customer towards pre-payment closure, only Rs.1,672/- was deposited and the remaining amount of Rs.4,184/- was not deposited. The audit report further mentions that out of the total loan amount of Rs.1,01,38,000/- disbursed to 207 customers, only Rs.8,27,812/- was deposited in the bank, whereas the remaining amount of Rs.93,10,188/- was not deposited in the bank. Thus, as per the audit report, there is prima facie con7rmation that the amount received in respect of a total of 218 customers was not deposited in the bank by the applicant Ravi Shankar Diwan. It 4 further appears from perusal of the case diary that after registration of the First Information Report on 04.07.2026, the applicant did not make himself available for investigation and also did not extend the requisite cooperation in the investigation. The allegations are serious in nature and relate to a grave economic o:ence involving alleged cheating of a large number of customers and misappropriation of a huge amount of money. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the alleged commission of the o:ence. It is further submitted that prior to registration of the present FIR, co-accused Anil Vishwakarma had lodged a complaint against his co-workers, on the basis of which FIR No.131/2026 was registered on 27.05.2026 under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, and the present FIR No.176/2026 was subsequently registered, which prima facie indicates that the present prosecution has been initiated as a counterblast and with an intention to harass the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that there is a material discrepancy regarding the amount allegedly misappropriated by the applicant. Although the present FIR alleges misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,11,93,173/- in respect of 267 customers against the applicant along with the co-accused persons but the notice issued to the applicant by Police Station Dhamdha which refers to the complaint of Virendra Kumar Pandey, Cluster Manager, Durg Area, speci7cally mentions that in respect of 53 customers, the loan amounts were withdrawn in their names but 5 were not paid to the customers and the monthly instalments and loan closure amounts deposited by the customers were also not deposited in the bank, the alleged amount being approximately Rs.20 lakhs. It is, therefore, submitted that, so far as the speci7c allegation against the applicant as reDected from the aforesaid notice is concerned, the alleged amount is approximately Rs.20 lakhs pertaining to 53 customers, whereas the amount of Rs.1,11,93,173/- relating to 267 customers has subsequently been alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was working as Branch Manager under the complainant company and was discharging his duties under its directions and supervision and had no independent control over the a:airs of the company. It is also submitted that the allegations are primarily based upon an internal audit report prepared by the complainant company, the authenticity and evidentiary value of which are matters to be adjudicated during trial. The applicant is the sole earner of his family, has no previous criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and relate to a substantial 7nancial fraud involving a large number of customers. It is submitted that, as per the internal audit report, the applicant, while working as Branch Manager, was entrusted with the collection and handling of loan amounts, EMIs and loan closure amounts, and substantial amounts received in respect of the customers were allegedly not deposited in 6 the bank. Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has alleged that an amount of Rs.1,11,93,173/- was misappropriated in respect of 267 customers by the applicant along with the co- accused persons and that the investigation is still in progress. It is further submitted that the applicant did not make himself available for investigation after registration of the FIR and did not extend the requisite cooperation to the Investigating O=cer. Therefore, considering the gravity of the o:ence, the magnitude of the alleged 7nancial irregularity and the possibility of the applicant inDuencing the investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the bene7t of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that in the present FIR, the allegation against the applicant along with the co- accused persons is with regard to alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,11,93,173/- pertaining to 267 customers. However, prior to registration of the present FIR, the notice issued by Police Station Dhamdha to the applicant on the basis of the complaint made by Virendra Kumar Pandey, Cluster Manager, Durg Area, speci7cally alleges that the applicant had allegedly not paid the loan amounts of 53 customers and had also not deposited their monthly installments and loan closure amounts in the bank, the total alleged amount being approximately Rs.20 lakhs. Thus, at this stage, there appears to be a material di:erence between the speci7c allegation 7 against the applicant reDected in the aforesaid notice and the larger allegation subsequently made in the FIR. The applicant is stated to have no criminal antecedents and the material allegations are based upon documentary records and the internal audit conducted by the complainant company. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the applicant has no criminal antecedents, thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be granted the bene7t of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ravishankar Diwan, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting O=cer, 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 along with a coloured postcard full size photo 8 having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veri7ed by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any o:ence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal