[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ranjit Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
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
Digitally
Soni House No. H/04, Shatabdi Nagar, Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur
signed by
VAIBHAV
Chhattisgarh ... Applicant
VAIBHAV SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.04.09
12:17:06
+0530
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
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. 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. 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
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
