SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SUNIL KUMAR KERKETTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC/4418/2026



##PAGE1##

1

Digitally

signed by

ABHISHEK

ABHISHEK SHRIVAS 2026:CGHC:22330

SHRIVAS Date:

2026.05.13

11:12:32 NAFR

+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 OfÏcer, 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

##PAGE2##

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 OfÏcer. 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 OfÏcer 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

##PAGE3##

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

conc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top