[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16892
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3309 of 2026
Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Gupta Aged About 34
Years R/o Flat No. 503, Gokul Tower, Gogaon, Police Station -
Gundiyari, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
Digitally
... Applicant(s)
AKHILESH signed by
KUMAR AKHILESH
DEWANGAN KUMAR
versus
DEWANGAN
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Somni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13/04/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 08/2026 registered at Police Station
Somni, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 3(5) of BNS.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by Surya Shekhar Tiwari, Managing
Coordinator of New Look Bio Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Crime No. 08/2026
was registered at Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon
against the present applicant Amit Kumar Gupta and other co-
accused persons for offences under relevant provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is alleged that the company, engaged
in procurement of broken rice through brokers, had appointed co-
accused Dileep Golcha, who, in connivance with certain
employees including the present applicant, prepared forged and
duplicate bills in the names of various firms, thereby causing
financial loss to the company. During the period from 03.11.2025
to 13.01.2026, substantial amounts were allegedly withdrawn
fraudulently without actual supply of goods. However, statements
of independent witnesses, including several rice mill owners,
indicate that goods were supplied through broker Dileep Golcha
and payments were received only against genuine transactions,
with some witnesses specifically denying issuance of any
duplicate bills. Thus, as per the prosecution material itself, the
alleged transactions were primarily handled by co-accused Dileep
Golcha and his firms, and the role attributed to the present
applicant is confined to processing entries and documentation in
his capacity as Accounts Manager. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in
offence in question. She further submits that one of the identically
situated co-accused, namely, Dileep Golcha has already been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in
MCRC No.2918 of 2026. She also submits that no recovery of any
incriminating materials has been made from the possession of
present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 14.01.2026, the
applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion.
Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in
the present case. She further submits that the applicant is alleged
to be an Accounts Manager who, in connivance with co-accused
persons, facilitated preparation and processing of forged and
duplicate bills in the names of various firms, thereby aiding in
fraudulent withdrawal of company funds without actual supply of
goods and causing financial loss to the company. She also
submits that the case of present applicant is distinguished from
the case of co-accused as the co-accused, Dileep Golcha was not
named in the FIR, where as present applicant is named in the
FIR, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant
since 14.01.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly
being an Accounts Manager who, in connivance with co-accused
persons, facilitated preparation and processing of forged and
duplicate bills in the names of various firms, thereby aiding in
fraudulent withdrawal of company funds without actual supply of
goods and causing financial loss to the company, but considering
the fact that the co-accused, namely, Dileep Golcha has already
been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026
passed in MCRC No.2918 of 2026 and the fact that the applicant
has no criminal antecedent, further the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case, as such, this Court is of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
8. Let the Applicant-Amit Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No.
08/2026 registered at Police Station Somni, Rajnandgaon, District
: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
316(4), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of BNS, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect
that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates
fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be
open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of
bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicant fails to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person,
before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening
of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is
deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be
open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse
of liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Akhil
