1 CGHC010319942026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1372 of 2026 Madhu Dubey W/o Pramod Dubey Aged About 51 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Vidhansabha District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Avinash Singh, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL) Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the B.N.S.S.) is for grant of anticipatory bail, in which, the applicant is apprehending the arrest in connection with Crime No. 357/2025 registered at Police Station – Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 316 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the B.N.S.) 3. Case of the prosecution, 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 co-accused Sagar Tiwari, who had been Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.11 14:34:20 +0530 2 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 co-accused 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 present applicant 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. Apprehending her arrest, the applicant has filed the present anticipatory bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. All the transactions have been made by her son, in which she was not in knowledge of the nature of the transaction. Even her Bank Account and other monetary transactions have been made by her son and she was totally unaware 3 of the affairs of the Bank and monetary transactions. Even in the statement made by a witness, there is no such allegation that the present applicant was knowingly involved in alleged offence. He would further submit that the amount was transferred in the Bank account of various persons, however, they have not been arrayed as accused but they have been made as eye witnesses and it is only the present applicant and her son have been accused. Since her son was working with the complainant, he has been made accused and on that basis, the present applicant has also been made as an accused in this case. He would also submit that regular bail of the co-accused Sagar Tiwari, son of the present applicant, has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 6696/2026, but the case of the present applicant is different than the case of Sagar Tiwari and the applicant being lady having no nexus with the present offence, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned State Counsel would submit that the allegations against present applicant are extremely in serious nature involving the criminal breach of trust and large-scale misappropriation of company funds along with her son. He would further submit that the son of the present 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. He would also submit that during investigation it was revealed from the bank statements that in the Bank Account of the applicant, an amount of Rs.25 lakhs has been transferred from one 4 VSC Financial Company where one Raju Das was working and in whose account, the said amount has been transferred from the complainant company and from his account, the said funds have been transferred to the Bank account of the present applicant. He would further submits that looking to the seriousness of the allegation against the present applicant and further that the manner in which the misappropriation has been made by the co-accused Sagar Tiwari and also the allegation of involvement of the present applicant that in her Bank Account, the said amount was transferred and keeping in view the regular bail of the co-accused Sagar Tiwari has also been rejected, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, anticipatory bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the manner in which the transaction has been made, the involvement of the present applicant and also considering the fact that regular bail application of co-accused Sagar Tiwari has been rejected on 24.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 6696/2026, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the present applicant on anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Madhu Dubey involved in Crime No. 257/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316 (4) of the B.N.S. is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Anjani JUDGE