1

CGHC010225022026 2026:CGHC:34379

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 5394 of 2026

Order Reserved on 29.07.2026

Order Delivered on 06.08.2026

•N. Uday Rao, S/o Late N.N. Rao, aged about 63 Years, R/o

Flat No. 34, Tower 4A, Surya Vihar Colony, Junwani, Bhilai,

Thana- Supela, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

•State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Investigating Officer,

Economic Offence Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

...Non-applicant

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant:Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Senior

Advocate appears along with Mr. Mohit

Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Agrawal and Ms.

Monika Singh, Advocates

For State :Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate

General

2

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

C.A.V. Order

1.This is the first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preferred by the applicant

seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime

No.44/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Raipur, for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that during the period

between the years 2019 and 2023, the Chhattisgarh State

Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) awarded contracts

to various manpower supply agencies including A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Alert

Commandos Private Limited, Primeone Workforce Private

Limited, Sumeet Facilities Limited and other agencies for

providing manpower such as salesmen, supervisors and

helpers for operation of retail liquor shops established

throughout the State of Chhattisgarh. During investigation, it

allegedly came to light that these manpower agencies, in

conspiracy with certain officers of CSMCL and private

intermediaries, devised a systematic mechanism for raising

3

inflated claims under the heads of overtime wages, bonus,

four additional working days and service charges. It is alleged

that although CSMCL released payments towards such

claims, the actual employees were not paid the entire

amounts shown in the bills and a substantial portion of the

excess amount was diverted towards payment of illegal

gratification to public servants and intermediaries for securing

clearance of bills, while the remaining amount was retained

by the manpower agencies and persons managing their

affairs as wrongful gain, thereby causing corresponding

wrongful loss to the State exchequer.

3.According to the prosecution, one of the principal manpower

agencies involved in the aforesaid arrangement was A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited, which had entered into agreements

with CSMCL for supply of manpower across the State.

Investigation allegedly revealed that the said company

received approximately Rs.34.06 crores towards overtime,

bonus, four additional working days and service charges over

and above the actual entitlement of employees. Out of the

said amount, approximately Rs.6.90 crores is alleged to have

been routed as illegal commission through intermediaries to

members of the alleged syndicate headed by the principal

accused, whereas the balance amount constituted wrongful

4

pecuniary advantage retained by the company and persons

associated with its affairs.

4.The prosecution further alleges that although the applicant

was neither a Director nor a shareholder of A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited, he was entrusted with the management

of the affairs of the company relating to the CSMCL contract

in the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the prosecution, the

applicant was responsible for manpower deployment,

recruitment, maintenance of attendance records, liaison with

officers of CSMCL, preparation of payment-related records,

operation of the company’s bank account as an authorised

signatory and supervision of other activities connected with

execution of the contract. It is alleged that the memorandum

statement of co-accused Amit Mittal, owner/director of A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited, statements of witnesses and

documentary material collected during investigation prima

facie disclose that the applicant actively participated in the

mechanism through which inflated claims were generated

and processed.

5.It is further alleged that financial analysis undertaken during

investigation discloses that approximately Rs.34.06 crores

was received by A-2-Z Infraservices Limited under the

aforesaid heads and out of the said amount approximately

5

Rs.6.90 crores was routed as illegal commission through the

present applicant to one Siddharth Singhania, who thereafter

transmitted the amount through other intermediaries,

ultimately reaching the principal accused. According to the

prosecution, the applicant was not merely involved in local

coordination but also played an active role in facilitating the

movement of illegal commission generated out of inflated

claims.

6.The prosecution has also relied upon the example of the bill

relating to the month of August, 2023 to demonstrate the

modus operandi allegedly adopted by the accused persons.

According to the prosecution, overtime payments amounting

to approximately Rs.81.87 lakhs were claimed in respect of

394 employees, whereas the actual payment made to each

employee was substantially lower than the amount claimed

from CSMCL. Such discrepancies, according to the

prosecution, reveal that inflated claims were systematically

raised in the name of employees, while a substantial part of

the amount was diverted towards payment of illegal

commission and wrongful gain to the persons managing the

affairs of the manpower agencies.

7.Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency

filed charge-sheet against the present applicant along with

6

other co-accused for offences punishable under Sections

467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits

that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

It is contended that the applicant was never named in the

First Information Report and came to be implicated only

during the course of investigation. According to the learned

Senior Counsel, the entire prosecution case against the

applicant rests substantially upon the memorandum

statement of co-accused- Amit Mittal and other inadmissible

material, without there being any independent evidence

connecting the applicant with the alleged offences. It is

submitted that admittedly the contract with CSMCL stood in

the name of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and not in the name

of the applicant. The applicant was neither a Director,

shareholder nor office bearer of the said company.

Throughout the relevant period, he was serving as Vice-

President (Marketing) with Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited

and had no managerial or financial control over A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited. According to the applicant, he merely

coordinated local manpower arrangements on behalf of

7

others without exercising any decision-making authority in the

affairs of the company.

9.Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no amount has

ever been credited into the personal bank account of the

applicant; no recovery of cash or incriminating material has

been effected from his possession; no disproportionate

assets have been traced to him; nor is there any material

showing that he derived any pecuniary benefit from the

alleged transactions. It is argued that the prosecution has

failed to establish any money trail connecting the applicant

with the alleged proceeds of crime and, therefore, the

essential ingredients of the offences alleged against him are

not prima facie made out.

10.It is further argued that the prosecution has incorrectly

projected the applicant as having complete operational

control over the affairs of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited.

Referring to the Board Resolution relied upon by the

prosecution, learned Senior Counsel submits that the

applicant was merely one of the joint authorised signatories

for operating the company’s bank account and that no

transaction could be undertaken by him independently

without the signatures of another authorised signatory.

According to the applicant, mere authority to jointly operate

8

the bank account cannot lead to an inference that he

exercised complete control over the financial or managerial

affairs of the company or that he was responsible for the

alleged conspiracy.

11.Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicant

was arrested on 12.05.2026 and within a short period

thereafter, i.e., on 18.05.2026, the charge-sheet came to be

filed. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the

investigating agency never sought police remand of the

applicant unlike certain other co-accused, which itself

demonstrates that no custodial interrogation of the applicant

was considered necessary. It is submitted that throughout the

course of investigation, the applicant remained available

before the Investigating Officer as and when required and

never attempted to evade the process of law. The conduct of

the applicant, according to the learned Senior Counsel,

clearly establishes that he has cooperated with the

investigation and there exists no likelihood of his absconding

or obstructing the course of justice.

12.Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the

applicant is entitled to parity with co-accused- Amit Mittal,

Director of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited, who has been

enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026

9

passed in M.Cr.C. No.4981 of 2026. Referring to paragraphs

39 to 49 of the said order, it is submitted that the observations

made therein regarding the applicant allegedly supervising

the affairs of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited were recorded only

on the basis of submissions advanced on behalf of the said

co-accused and not on the basis of any Board Resolution

seized during investigation. It is submitted that no document

has been recovered authorising the applicant to

independently manage the affairs of the company. Learned

Senior Counsel would submit that the Board Resolution relied

upon by the prosecution merely authorised the applicant to

jointly operate the bank account along with another

authorised signatory and did not confer upon him any

independent authority to manage the day-to-day affairs of the

company.

13.It is further submitted that even according to the

memorandum statement of co-accused- Amit Mittal, the

applicant was never an employee, Director or shareholder of

A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and no salary, remuneration or

consultancy charges were ever paid to him by the said

company. The applicant merely rendered assistance in local

deployment of manpower as the tender conditions required

engagement of manpower from within the State of

10

Chhattisgarh. Learned Senior Counsel submits that there

existed no employer-employee relationship between the

applicant and A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and, therefore, the

question of attributing vicarious criminal liability to the

applicant does not arise.

14.Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that no recovery

whatsoever has been effected from the applicant. Neither any

cash nor any incriminating document nor any electronic

device evidencing payment of illegal gratification has been

recovered from his possession. No immovable property,

investment or asset allegedly acquired from the proceeds of

the crime has been traced to the applicant. It is submitted that

in absence of any recovery or money trail connecting the

applicant with the alleged proceeds of crime, his continued

incarceration is wholly unjustified.

15.Learned Senior Counsel has also urged that the applicant is

about 63 years of age and is suffering from multiple serious

ailments including coronary artery disease, Grade-I left

ventricular diastolic dysfunction, hypertension, metabolic

disorders and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD).

Referring to the medical documents filed along with the

application, it is submitted that the applicant requires constant

medical supervision and specialised treatment. It is further

11

submitted that despite orders passed by the learned Special

Judge directing proper medical treatment, adequate medical

facilities have not been provided to the applicant while in

judicial custody. According to the learned Senior Counsel,

continued incarceration would seriously prejudice the health

of the applicant and violate his fundamental right guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

16.Learned Senior Counsel has further questioned the

maintainability of the present prosecution by contending that

the allegations forming the basis of the present FIR

substantially overlap with those already under investigation in

Crime No.04 of 2024 relating to the alleged liquor scam. It is

argued that registration of a second FIR in respect of

substantially the same transaction is impermissible in law and

contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in

T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348.

17.In support of the prayer for bail, learned Senior Counsel has

further placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme

Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40;

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; Dataram

Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22; National Small

Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal,

12

(2010) 3 SCC 330; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC

609; Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026

SCC OnLine SC 30; Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 2550; Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2023) 16 SCC 764; Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1

SCC 676 and other decisions to contend that once

investigation is complete, the evidence is primarily

documentary in nature and the accused satisfies the triple

test, continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial

punishment.

18.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of

bail. It is submitted that the present case pertains to a deep-

rooted and well-organised conspiracy involving large-scale

corruption in the functioning of Chhattisgarh State Marketing

Corporation Limited, resulting in wrongful loss to the State

exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to private entities

and members of the alleged syndicate. According to the

learned counsel for the State, the investigation has revealed

that various manpower agencies, including A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited, systematically generated inflated claims

under the heads of overtime, bonus, four additional working

days and service charges and, after obtaining payment from

13

CSMCL, diverted a substantial portion thereof towards

payment of illegal commission to public servants and

intermediaries for securing clearance of their bills.

19.Learned counsel for the State submits that the role attributed

to the present applicant is not that of a mere employee or

local coordinator. According to the prosecution, the applicant

was entrusted with the management of the affairs of A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited in relation to the CSMCL contract within

the State of Chhattisgarh and was responsible for manpower

deployment, attendance records, agreements, payment-

related records, liaison with CSMCL authorities, operation of

the company’s bank account as an authorised signatory and

financial transactions connected with execution of the

contract. The memorandum statement of co-accused Amit

Mittal, statements of witnesses and documentary evidence

collected during investigation, according to the State, prima

facie establish that the applicant actively managed the

execution of the contract and facilitated the mechanism

through which inflated claims were processed.

20.Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the

financial analysis conducted during investigation reveals that

A-2-Z Infraservices Limited received excess payments

aggregating to approximately Rs.34.06 crores under the

14

heads of overtime, bonus, four additional working days and

service charges, out of which approximately Rs.6.90 crores

was allegedly routed as illegal commission through the

present applicant to Siddharth Singhania and thereafter

transmitted through other intermediaries to the principal

accused, Anwar Dhebar. It is submitted that the material

collected during investigation prima facie discloses the

applicant’s active involvement in the movement of illegal

commission and, therefore, considering the gravity of the

offence, magnitude of the financial irregularities and the stage

of the trial, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on

bail.

21.I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

applicant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State

at length and have perused the case diary, charge-sheet,

documents placed on record and the rival submissions with

due care.

22.At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the allegations in

the present case are not confined to mere breach of

contractual obligations or accounting irregularities. The

prosecution case, as unfolded during investigation, discloses

a prima facie case of a well-organised conspiracy whereby

inflated claims were allegedly generated under the heads of

15

overtime, bonus, four additional working days and service

charges in respect of manpower supplied to CSMCL. It is

alleged that after obtaining payment on the basis of such

inflated claims, a substantial portion of the excess amount

was diverted towards payment of illegal gratification to public

servants and members of the alleged syndicate, while the

remaining amount was retained by the manpower agencies

and persons managing their affairs, thereby causing wrongful

loss to the public exchequer. The offences alleged include

criminal conspiracy, forgery, use of forged documents and

offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are

undoubtedly serious in nature.

23.The principal contention advanced on behalf of the applicant

is that he was neither a Director nor a shareholder nor the

owner of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and was merely serving

as Vice-President (Marketing) of Chhattisgarh Distilleries

Limited. According to the applicant, he only rendered

assistance in local coordination of manpower and never

exercised any financial or managerial control over A-2-Z

Infraservices Limited. It has also been contended that no

salary or remuneration was ever paid to him by the said

company and, therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened

16

upon him merely because he assisted in execution of the

contract.

24.Prima facie, the aforesaid submission does not persuade this

Court. The material collected during investigation, particularly

the memorandum statement of co-accused- Amit Mittal,

statements of witnesses, attendance records, operational

documents, banking records and other documentary material,

prima facie indicates that though the applicant may not have

been a Director or shareholder of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited,

he was actively associated with the execution of the CSMCL

contract within the State of Chhattisgarh. The prosecution

material indicates that manpower deployment, attendance

management, liaison with CSMCL authorities, preparation

and forwarding of payment-related documents and other

operational activities connected with execution of the contract

were being carried out by the applicant.

25.The charge-sheet further reveals that the applicant’s mobile

number and e-mail address were linked with the operational

bank account of A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and that he

functioned as one of the authorised signatories for operation

of the said account. Though learned Senior Counsel has

contended that the applicant could not have independently

operated the account without another authorised signatory,

17

such contention pertains to appreciation of evidence, which

cannot be undertaken at this stage. Whether the Board

Resolution authorised the applicant only to jointly operate the

account or whether such authority ultimately establishes

criminal liability are questions which fall for consideration

during trial. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is

only required to examine whether the material collected

during investigation discloses a prima facie case against the

applicant.

26.The prosecution has further placed material to indicate that

A-2-Z Infraservices Limited received approximately Rs.34.06

crores towards overtime, bonus, four additional working days

and service charges and that out of the said amount,

approximately Rs.6.90 crores was allegedly routed as illegal

commission through various intermediaries. According to the

prosecution, the present applicant was instrumental in

facilitating the movement of the said illegal commission. At

this stage, these allegations find prima facie support from the

financial analysis, bank records, documentary evidence and

statements recorded during investigation. Whether such

material ultimately establishes the guilt of the applicant

beyond reasonable doubt is a matter which shall be decided

by the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence.

18

27.The submission that the applicant has been implicated solely

on the basis of the memorandum statement of

co-accused- Amit Mittal also does not appear to be entirely

correct. The prosecution has relied not only upon the

memorandum statement of the co-accused but also upon

attendance registers, bank documents, payment records,

witness statements, financial analysis and other documentary

evidence collected during investigation. At the stage of

consideration of bail, this Court cannot embark upon a

meticulous examination of the admissibility or evidentiary

value of each document or witness statement.

28.Equally, the contention that no recovery has been effected

from the applicant and that no amount has been credited to

his personal bank account cannot, by itself, constitute a

ground for grant of bail in the peculiar facts of the present

case. The allegations against the applicant are not confined

to personal enrichment but extend to his alleged active

participation in execution of the criminal conspiracy by

facilitating inflated claims and routing illegal commission. The

question whether the applicant personally derived any

financial benefit is a matter to be examined during trial.

29.Much emphasis has been laid by learned Senior Counsel

upon the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by this Court

19

granting bail to co-accused- Amit Mittal and the applicant has

claimed parity therewith. The submission does not merit

acceptance. It is well settled that parity is not an absolute

rule. The role attributed to each accused, the nature of

evidence available against him and the surrounding

circumstances have to be independently considered. Grant of

bail to one accused does not automatically entitle another

accused to the same relief unless the role attributed to both is

substantially identical.

30.In the present case, the prosecution has specifically alleged

that the applicant was the person supervising execution of the

CSMCL contract within the State of Chhattisgarh, maintaining

attendance records, coordinating with CSMCL officials,

operating the bank account as an authorised signatory and

facilitating financial transactions connected with the alleged

commission mechanism. At this stage, this Court is unable to

hold that the applicant stands on the same footing as

co-accused- Amit Mittal or the other co-accused who have

already been granted bail. Therefore, the principle of parity is

of no assistance to the applicant.

31.It has also been argued on behalf of the applicant that the

investigation stands concluded, charge-sheet has been filed

and the entire prosecution case rests upon documentary

20

evidence already seized by the investigating agency. Though

filing of the charge-sheet is undoubtedly a relevant

consideration while deciding an application for bail, the same

by itself cannot be regarded as conclusive. The Court is

equally required to consider the nature and gravity of the

accusation, the extent of involvement attributed to the

accused, the magnitude of the offence, the possibility of

influencing witnesses and the larger interest of society.

32.The present case concerns allegations of large-scale financial

irregularities involving diversion of public funds running into

several crores of rupees. The allegations disclose an

organised mechanism whereby inflated claims were allegedly

generated and public money intended for payment of

employees was siphoned off by routing a part thereof as

illegal gratification to public servants and intermediaries.

Economic offences involving corruption and diversion of

public money constitute a class apart, affecting not merely an

individual victim but the financial health of public institutions

and public confidence in governance. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court has repeatedly held that while considering bail in cases

involving economic offences, the Court is required to keep in

mind the larger societal interest and the seriousness of the

allegations.

21

33.The prosecution has also expressed a specific apprehension

that several material witnesses are connected with

attendance records, billing processes, manpower

deployment, financial transactions and the alleged

commission mechanism. The trial has not yet commenced

and none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined.

Having regard to the position allegedly occupied by the

applicant in the execution of the CSMCL contract, the

apprehension expressed by the prosecution that his release

at this stage may result in influencing witnesses or otherwise

affecting the fair conduct of the trial cannot be said to be

wholly unfounded.

34.So far as the medical condition of the applicant is concerned,

the documents placed on record indicate that the applicant is

about 63 years of age and is suffering from certain ailments

requiring regular medical supervision. However, no material

has been placed before this Court to establish that the

necessary medical facilities cannot be extended to the

applicant while he remains in judicial custody. In the event

specialised treatment is required, it shall be open to the

competent authorities to ensure that the applicant receives

appropriate medical treatment in accordance with law.

Therefore, at this stage, the medical condition of the applicant

22

does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting

grant of regular bail.

35.The contention advanced on behalf of the applicant that the

present FIR is liable to be questioned on the ground that it

constitutes a second FIR in respect of the same transaction

as Crime No.04 of 2024 also cannot be examined in detail

while deciding the present application for bail. Whether the

present prosecution is hit by the principles laid down in T.T.

Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai

Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, or whether

both prosecutions arise out of the same transaction, are

issues which may appropriately be examined in proceedings

instituted for that purpose. Such questions do not fall for

adjudication while considering an application for regular bail.

36.Likewise, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior

Counsel for the applicant in Sanjay Chandra, Satender

Kumar Antil, Dataram Singh, Sunil Bharti Mittal, Harmeet

Singh Paintal, Arvind Dham, Arvind Kejriwal, Mohd.

Zubair, Siddharth (supra) and other judgments undoubtedly

reiterate the settled principles governing grant of bail and the

constitutional importance of personal liberty under Article 21

of the Constitution. However, it is equally well settled that

every application for bail has to be decided on its own facts.

23

The ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied in

isolation, ignoring the nature of the allegations, the prima

facie material collected during investigation and the specific

role attributed to the accused.

37.Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the

gravity and magnitude of the alleged offence, the prima facie

material collected during investigation, the specific role

attributed to the applicant in the execution of the alleged

conspiracy, the nature of evidence collected by the

investigating agency and the stage of the proceedings, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has not

been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail at this

stage.

38.Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the material

collected during investigation prima facie indicates the

involvement of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy relating

to submission of inflated claims and routing of illegal

commission. At this stage, the prosecution case is supported

by documentary evidence, bank records, financial

transactions and statements recorded during investigation.

Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the

magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the stage of

24

the trial and the possibility of the applicant influencing the

prosecution witnesses, this Court is not inclined to exercise

its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.

39.So far as the contention of the applicant that he has been

treated differently in comparison to co-accused persons is

concerned, the same cannot be examined in isolation at this

stage. The material available on record prima facie indicates

that the present applicant was allegedly acting as an

intermediary between the manpower agencies and the

concerned government officials and was involved in the

process of routing the alleged illegal commission. The role

attributed to the present applicant requires appreciation of

evidence during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively

determined at the stage of consideration of the application for

bail.

40.The contention of the applicant that there existed no

employer-employee relationship between the applicant and

co-accused Amit Mittal and that no remuneration was paid to

the applicant for his services, thereby excluding any question

of vicarious criminal liability, also cannot be accepted at this

stage. The allegations against the applicant are not based

merely on any employer-employee relationship but pertain to

25

his alleged role in the conspiracy and facilitation of the

transactions forming part of the alleged offence.

41.It is also urged that no recovery of any nature has been

effected from the applicant; no cash has been recovered from

his possession; no incriminating documents or electronic

devices have been seized from him; no property, investment

or asset allegedly acquired from the proceeds of the offence

has been identified; and no amount has been traced to his

personal bank account. However, the absence of recovery by

itself cannot be a sole ground for grant of bail when the

prosecution case is based on other material collected during

investigation, including documentary evidence, financial

transactions and statements of witnesses. The evidentiary

value of such material is a matter for consideration during the

course of trial.

42.Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, the material

collected during investigation, the specific role attributed to

the applicant and the overall circumstances of the case, this

Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the

applicant at this stage.

43.Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of regular

26

bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023.

44.Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit deserves to

be and is hereby dismissed.

45.It is, however, made clear that the observations made

hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present

application for bail and shall not be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned

trial Court shall proceed to decide the case independently on

the basis of the evidence adduced before it, without being

influenced by any observation made in this order.

46.Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Vishakha