Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Kerketta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS Date: 2026:CGHC:22330
2026.05.13
NAFR
11:12:32
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4418 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Kerketta S/o Shri Gareeb Sai Aged About 28 Years R/o -Village
Maharanipur P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur District Surguja (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sitapur District
Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.05.2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2022 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
2. As per the prosecution story, a report was lodged by the complainant, Ashutosh Kujur, Assistant Engineer, C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., alleging misappropriation of government funds to the tune of Rs. 2,92,62,207/-. A departmental inquiry was conducted by a committee for the financial years 2019 to 22.10.2021, wherein it was alleged that there 2 was a mismatch between the documents and the computer entries. It was further alleged that the daily revenue/bill amount collected in cash from consumers was entered into the computer, and after totalling the daily collection, the cash was deposited in the bank. Thereafter, along with the bank receipt, the C.R.A. (Cash Receipt Audit) report was prepared and submitted before the Senior Accounting Officer. It is specifically alleged that, for punching cash entries of Sitapur and Petla, the SAP ID was provided to Arvind Sagar, and for Mainpat, the SAP ID was provided to Ganesh Prasad Singh, which could only be used by them. It is further alleged that in Sitapur, an amount of Rs. 2,15,92,052/- was found to have been misappropriated. Likewise, in Mainpat, Rs. 29,26,207/- and in Petla, Rs. 49,11,223/- were found to have been misappropriated. Hence, the present offence has been registered against the applicant and the co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the foresaid case. He submits that the applicant was appointed to the post of Line Conductor on a contractual basis, and his place of duty was Village Petla. The duty assigned to the applicant was to collect the bill amount and hand over the same to the Punching Officer of the Village Petla Distribution Centre, who, in the present case, was Arvind Sagar. Moreover, the applicant was neither assigned the duty of making any entry in the computer nor of preparing the C.R.A. report. Therefore, the applicant could not have misappropriated the funds and bill amounts, as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the applicant's duties were confined only to Village Petla and did not extend to Sitapur and Mainpat, where misappropriation of government funds has also been alleged. The applicant has been made a scapegoat by the higher 3 authorities in order to shift the blame upon him and evade responsibility, for the reason that the applicant is a lower cadre employee working as a Line Conductor, who had no authority to misappropriate the bill amount, nor did he possess the SAP ID and password through which the cash receipts were punched into the computer. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 21.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He submits that the applicant is involved in a serious economic offence concerning large-scale misappropriation of government funds amounting to Rs. 2,92,62,207/-. Departmental inquiry revealed deliberate manipulation of official records and misuse of SAP IDs for embezzlement of public money over a prolonged period. Considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant's specific role in the financial irregularities, and the ongoing investigation, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 16.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the Applicant - Sunil Kumar Kerketta, involved in Crime No. 4 21/2022 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District - Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing 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 his 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 5 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek