1 2026:CGHC:16183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 508 of 2026 Ranjit Kumar S/o Shri Siddheshwar Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o R K Soni House No. H/04, Shatabdi Nagar, Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.23/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per case diary the complaint against the applicant lodged a written report before police station VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.09 12:17:06 +0530 2 Saraswati Nagar Raipur in crime No. 23/2026 for offence under section 316(4) of BNS has been That case registered. according to diary, complainant resides at Gram Dhwajamnipur Police station Hirbandh, District Bakuda (West Bengal) and he was working as Manager at Hotel Pikadali since 11/11/2025. After taking the charge of present complainant the Ex-Manager Ranjit Kumar after taking the charge of Hotel, demanded a cash Handover ledger from the Ranjit Kumar. Then he stated that the ledger will be confirmed from Account Manager Komal Yadav and continuously demanding the information of ledger and cash collection and no report given up to 09/01/2026. Thereafter the complainant taken help from Junior Accountant by the ledger and cash collection report, and after scrutinize there is total amount of Rs. 40,11,985/- and in addition to missing one voucher amount of Rs. 1,50,082/- so there is total difference amount of Rs. 41,62,067/- has been embezzled. The Ex. Manager Ranjit Kumar and Accountant Komal Yadav both were not deposited the amount in the account of Hotel Pikadali Private Limited and said money was misused with fraudulently embezzled the aforesaid money. It is clear from the Audit report the above amount was recovered from and different side but the same amount was not deposited in the account of Hotel not mentioned in Ledger account of Hotel. According to first information report between dated 01/04/2025 to 09/01/2026 made by Audit report Rs41,62,067/- in respect of financial irregularities has been found. According to submitting document of applicant on 15/11/2025 all work charge with documents and work hand over documents submitted by him. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is an educated, honest and reputed person in society and has no role to play in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 316(4) of the B.N.S. are not attracted against the present applicant and the complainant has deliberately implicated him in a false case due to previous enmity. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place between 01.04.2025 and 10.01.2026, whereas the First Information Report was registered only on 22.01.2026, after a delay of about 13 days, for which no proper explanation has been furnished, thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful and fabricated. It is further submitted that the applicant has not obtained any benefit from the alleged act and has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. The applicant had already handed over all relevant documents and No Objection Certificate in writing at the time of resigning from Hotel Piccadily. It is also submitted that the applicant was working as a Manager in the said hotel and was not responsible for any clerical or financial work relating to ledger books, as such work was being carried out by the accountant. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on suspicion without any concrete evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. The applicant is aged about 53 years, is looking after his family, has no likelihood of absconding, and is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title having landed property there. The applicant deserves consideration for grant of anticipatory bail and reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that during audit of the accounts of Hotel Pikadali Private Limited, financial irregularities amounting to Rs. 41,62,067/- were found. It is alleged that the present applicant, namely Ranjit Kumar, who is the main accused in the case, along with co-accused Komal Yadav, failed to deposit the said amount in the hotel account and fraudulently embezzled the same. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the allegations and the amount involved, the State opposes the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available in the case diary, it appears prima facie that a sum of Rs. 41,62,067/- was found missing from the accounts of Hotel Pikadli Pvt. Ltd. during the period from 01.04.2025 to 09.01.2026. The case diary reveals that despite repeated requests made by the complainant after taking charge on 15.11.2025, the former Manager Ranjit Kumar and Accountant Komal Yadav failed to provide the cash ledger and complete details of the cash collection. Upon scrutiny of the ledger and cash collection report with the assistance of the junior accountant, a discrepancy of Rs. 40,11,985/- along with one missing voucher amounting to Rs. 1,50,082/- was found. The audit further indicates that the said amount had been collected from various parties but was neither deposited in the hotel account nor reflected in the financial records of the hotel. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations, the large amount 5 involved, and the prima facie material available against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the case of the co- accused whose bail application has been allowed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Ranjit Kumar, involved in Crime No.23/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav