The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a hotel accountant accused of misappropriating over Rs. 41 lakh, holding that the allegations primarily relate to accounting discrepancies and that the applicant’s role appeared limited.
The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha has observed that the primary allegations relate to accounting discrepancies. The principal responsibility for handling cash transactions, as reflected in the FIR, was attributed to the then Manager. The applicant’s role appeared confined to maintenance of ledger records. No direct recovery had been effected from him. The matter largely involves documentary evidence already in custody of the prosecution. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is no material to indicate likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.
The applicant had apprehended arrest in connection with Crime registered at Police Station Saraswatinagar, Raipur, for an offence punishable under Section 316(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
As per the prosecution, the complainant joined Hotel Piccadily Pvt. Ltd., Raipur as Manager in November 2025 and formally took charge on November 15, 2025. Upon assuming charge, he sought handover of the ledger and cash collection details, allegedly in the custody of the applicant.
Despite repeated requests, the ledger and proper records were not furnished until January 9, 2026. Upon verification, a discrepancy of Rs. 40,11,985 was allegedly found unaccounted for, along with a missing voucher of Rs. 1,50,082, totaling Rs. 41,62,067.
The FIR alleged that the collected amounts were neither deposited in the hotel’s official bank account nor reflected in accordance with accounting procedures, and were dishonestly misappropriated by the then Manager and the applicant.
The applicant argued that he was merely a Junior Accountant and had neither custody nor exclusive control over cash transactions, vouchers, or customer dealings, which were handled under the direct supervision of the former General Manager.
The applicant contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature concerning accounting discrepancies and had been given a criminal colour. The defence also emphasized that the hotel’s accounts were subject to periodic audits, including GST audits, and no prior misappropriation had been attributed to the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents and continues to remain in service.
The State opposed the bail plea, submitting that the applicant, being entrusted with maintaining ledger records, failed to produce them despite repeated demands. Given the substantial amount involved and the seriousness of the economic offence, the prosecution argued that anticipatory bail should not be granted.
The Court further noted that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that the trial is likely to take considerable time.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and one surety of like sum, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and abstention from similar offences.
Case Details
Case Title: Komal Yadav Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: JURISHOUR-49-HC-2026(Chh)
Case No.: MCRCA No. 279 of 2026
Date: 20.02.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Devershi Thakur, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate
