1 / 5 2025:CGHC:41960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4848 of 2025 Order reserved on 07.08.2025 Order delivered on 20 .08.2025 Niyojit Biswas S/o Arun Biswas, Aged About 34 Years, R/o B-13/57 Kalyani, Nadia, District Nadiya (West Bengal) 741235 ... Applicant Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Indian Bank through Branch Manager, Branch - Dondekhurd, Raipur District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mohammad Fayzan Khan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy, AG For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail. The first Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file after some time in MCRC No. 2255 of 2025 on 29.04.2025. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 14:06:30 +0530 2 / 5 2. It is pertinent to mention here that, the applicant has surrendered on 12.02.2025 in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl). No. 619 of 2025 decided on 17.01.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the statement of the applicant that he is also prepared to remit the balance amount and thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order granting applicant to surrender within four weeks from today and applies for regular bail before the concerned Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed that the concerned Court should consider the same expeditiously on merit, bearing in mind the statement made by the applicant’s counsel before this Court. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the then Branch Manager of Indian Bank Dondekhurd, Raipur lodged the complaint in Police Station Vidhanshab alleging that earlier Branch Manager i.e. the applicant has withdrawn the amount from various accounts maintained by the customers of the bank to the tune of Rs. 1,93,81,637/- till lodging of the FIR on 04.11.2023. It is also case of the prosecution that he has misappropriated total Rs. 2,13,71,637/- out of which he has returned Rs. 19,90,000/- to various accounts maintained by self help groups who are the customers of the bank and thus committed offence of embezzlement. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicant has transferred the said amount to his own State Bank account bearing account No. 34649196764 through RTGS/NEFT. On the basis of the complaint, FIR under Section 409 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. 3 / 5 4. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not misappropriated the amount deposited by the account holders in the bank. He would further submit that earlier the bank has filed a chart showing increased amount to Rs. 2.17 crore and the bank has given wrong information in affidavit before the Court showing repeated transaction in the chart which is outstanding liability on him. He would further submit that the applicant repeatedly requested the bank for providing account statement of the disputed accounts but till date they have not provided the statements to him which shows mala-fide intention against him. He would further submit that Rs. 73,50,000/- has already been deposited by his family members after taking loan at higher interest through personal loan and by mortgaging their house also. He would further submit that the applicant has not played any role in the alleged offence and he has been roped in the alleged offence on mere suspicion. He would further submit that charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025 and the offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate and trial will take considerable time. He would further submit that the investigation is almost complete, therefore, there is no likelihood of interfering with the investigation and the applicant is willing and ready to abide by all the directions and conditions to be imposed by this Court and would pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the bank would submit that the applicant has deliberately enhanced ceiling limit of customers who are the members of Mudra Scheme run by the bank. He would further submit that initially the 4 / 5 limit of Mudra Scheme was Rs. 1 lakh which has subsequently been enhanced from Rs. 3 lakh upto Rs. 6 lakhs. The applicant after enhancing the ceiling limit without request from the customers, credited in the bank account of the customers, thus there is sufficient material against the applicant for embezzlement of fund and would pray for rejection of bail. The bank has also submitted information regarding outstanding amount against the applicant comes to Rs. 1,08,29,396/-which he has fraudulently withdrawn from the bank account of customers after adjustment of payment of Rs 73,50,000/- which he has deposited. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and supported the contentions of the bank. He would further submit that during investigation it has been found that the applicant has misappropriated certain amounts and would pray for rejection of bail application of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant was working as Branch Manager and he was entrusted with the public money/government money and there is prima-facie material against the applicant for commission of offence of embezzlement, which prima-facie, reflects dishonest intention of embezzling the money and also considering the fact the applicant being Branch Manager is custodian of customers’ money. Further considering the fact that the applicant has not deposited the balance amount as per statement made by the counsel for the applicant before Hon’ble Supreme Court as reflected from order dated 17.01.2025, 5 / 5 therefore, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, bail application is liable to be rejected and it is rejected. 9. It is made clear, that any observation made by this Court will not come in the way in deciding the trial on its own merit without being influenced from any observation made by this Court while rejecting the bail application. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh