1 2025:CGHC:50965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6396 of 2025 Aitbal Singh S/o Ramsevak Singh Aged About 69 Years R/o Tuna Abradad, Police Station, Dharima, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Kushmi, District - Balrampur Ramanujunj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General along with Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 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. 39/2025 registered at Police Station Kushmi, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant who served in the District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit with integrity and diligence. He ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.15 13:18:09 +0530 2 retired from service on 31.01.2018 and has since led a quiet and dignified life. The applicant is currently in judicial custody since 26.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 501, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The genesis of the present case lies in a letter dated 10.04.2024 issued by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh, addressed to the Regional Office of NABARD, Raipur, alleging financial irregularities in three specific accounts maintained at the Kusmi and Shankargarh branches of the District Cooperative Central Bank. Pursuant to this letter, NABARD issued a directive on 26.04.2024 to the Bank’s Chief Executive Officer, instructing that an internal inquiry be conducted and compliance reported. Acting upon the NABARD directive, an initial internal assessment was conducted, and a report was submitted claiming no apparent irregularities in the accounts under scrutiny. However, NABARD subsequently ordered a detailed audit by M/s Naveen Upadhyay & Associates, who submitted a Face Audit Report dated 05.02.2025, alleging potential misappropriation amounting to Rs. 13.14 crores across multiple accounts. Following this, a Special Audit was commissioned through M/s Tank Khatri & Associates, whose findings submitted on 05.04.2025 purported that the total irregularities amounted to Rs. 26.47 crores, allegedly spread across a number of fictitious accounts and fraudulent NEFT transfers. The audit report identified the following transactions: Rs. 1,36,95,199.93/- in A/c No. 604007054842 (Ashok Kumar Soni), Rs. 46,44,841/- in A/c No. 604007024067 (Prakash Kumar Singh), Rs.96,36,814/- in A/c No. 104000578368 (Sudesh Kumar Yadav), Rs. 30,00,000 allegedly transferred to Mahamaya Construction via NEFT. Based on these audit findings, a 3 criminal complaint was filed with Police Station Kusmi, leading to the registration of the present FIR. The applicant, along with multiple other serving and retired employees, was named in the FIR for allegedly participating in a criminal conspiracy. The allegations are broad, sweeping, and primarily based on institutional suspicion rather than concrete acts of wrongdoing by the applicant. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, colluded with beneficiaries such as Mahamaya Construction and Jamuna Alankar, and, through fake KCC accounts and forged documents, fraudulently transferred funds from genuine farmers’ loan accounts to fictitious beneficiaries, thereby defrauding the Bank of crores of rupees. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that at the outset, it is pointed out that the allegation against the applicant is utterly baseless and stems from the fertile imagination of the prosecution. It is asserted that the prosecution has sought to invent the alleged crime, and that too, in the most absurd and laughable manner. He also submits that based on the prosecution’s story, there is a lack of direct evidence. The case appears to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. The applicant retired from service on 31.01.2018, having served the District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit with diligence and an unblemished record. The allegations in the FIR pertain to a broad time span between 2013 and 2022, covering several audit years even beyond the applicant’s tenure. Therefore, the applicant cannot be held accountable for acts committed post-retirement, nor can liability be imputed to him for events that occurred while he was no longer part of the system. He also submits that the applicant’s last posting was as Assistant Chief Supervisor in the District Cooperative 4 Central Bank Maryadit from 16.11.2016 to 31.01.2018. Out of this period, the applicant was on sanctioned leave for approximately five months, substantially limiting his functional presence. The bulk of the alleged financial irregularities, as per the FIR and audit reports, pertain to transactions and operations continuing up to 2022, i.e., several years after the applicant’s retirement. It is thus untenable in law and on facts to impute liability to him for events that occurred either beyond his service period or during his absence on leave. He submits that the applicant is of advanced age, nearly 70 years, and has been suffering from multiple health issues. He has longstanding urological problems and, during custody, was again diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. He submits that the offences relate to a protracted timeline beginning in 2013 and continuing until 2022, yet the FIR was lodged only in May 2025, nearly three years after the terminal year of the alleged offence and over seven years post the applicant’s retirement. No contemporaneous departmental inquiry, show-cause notice, or vigilance action was initiated against the applicant during his service or immediately thereafter, suggesting that his implication is a retrospective afterthought. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 26.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 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. They further submit that in compliance with this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 28.08.2025, the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case submitted an affidavit stating that an FIR bearing Crime No. 39/2025 was registered at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur–Ramanujganj (C.G.) against the 5 present applicant and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC, 1860 [corresponding to Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023], based on a complaint by the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Bank, Ambikapur. The complaint alleges misappropriation of funds in 10–15 bank accounts. A Committee constituted by the Chief Executive Officer, Shankargarh, reported misappropriation in 138 entries covering the period 2013-14 to 2023-24, with a total amount of Rs. 26,47,82,462/-. Details of the accounts and transactions are annexed as ANNEXURE R/1. Investigation revealed financial irregularities including: Rs. 19,22,73,908/- in 1,597 transactions in Account No. 604007085677 of Aadim Jati Samiti, Jamdi Saan, Rs. 91,57,000/- in 46 transactions in Account No. 104003641217 of CEO, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh, Rs. 3,19,20,700/- in 138 transactions in NREGA Dhaneshpur Account No. 604007009117, Rs. 40,54,000/- in 12 NEFT transactions to Jamuna Alankar. Total irregularities: Rs. 23,74,05,608/-. The Bank appointed Tank Khatri & Associates for a Special Audit (letter dated 13.02.2025), which revealed additional irregularities: Rs. 1,36,95,199.93/- in Account No. 604007054842 (Ashok Kumar Soni), Rs. 46,44,841/- in Account No. 604007024067 (Prakash Kumar Singh), Rs. 96,36,814/- in Account No. 1040005783678 (Sudesh Kumar Yadav), Rs. 30,00,000/- transferred via NEFT to Mahamaya Construction, total irregularities: Rs. 26,47,82,462.93/-. The accused applicant, Aitbal Singh, was arrested on 26.05.2025 in connection with the FIR. It is stated that investigation revealed that the accused misused Bank ID Number 256 to transfer funds meant for public welfare and Panchayat accounts during his posting at Kusmi Branch (01.02.2017 to 30.01.2018), in collusion with 6 other Bank employees. The applicant admitted in his memorandum statement that he received Rs. 2–3 thousand as commission for these transactions, part of which was used for daily expenses and for purchasing a keypad mobile (seized on 02.06.2025). All accused including Ashok Kumar Soni, Sudesh Kumar Yadav, Prakash Singh, Aitbal Singh, Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Samal Sai, Vikas Chand Pandavi, Tabarak Ali, Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Vijay Uikey, Laxman Prasad Dewangan, Rajendra Gupta, and Navneet Soni, were found involved in cheating and embezzlement of government funds through a criminal conspiracy, leading to registration under Section 120B IPC, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely Ashok Soni, Prakash Kumar Singh, and Sudesh Kumar Yadav, who are employees of the Jila Sahakari Bank, had fraudulent transactions in their accounts amounting to Rs. 1,36,95,199.93/-, Rs. 46,44,841, and Rs. 96,36,814/- respectively. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the incident complained of pertains to the period between 2013 and 2022, whereas the FIR was registered against the applicant along with other co-accused persons, who are employees of the Jila Sahakari Bank, in the year 2025. The allegation against the applicant is that, he misused his Bank ID Number 256 to transfer funds meant for public welfare and Panchayat accounts during his posting at Kusmi Branch (01.02.2017 to 30.01.2018), in collusion with other Bank employees. Although the main allegations are against the co-accused 7 persons, namely, Ashok Soni, Prakash Kumar Singh, and Sudesh Kumar Yadav, who are employees of the Jila Sahakari Bank and had fraudulent transactions in their accounts amounting to Rs. 1,36,95,199.93/-, Rs. 46,44,841/-, and Rs. 96,36,814/-, respectively, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the aforesaid co-accused. Moreover, considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court, and further the applicant has been in custody since 26.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the Applicant – Aitbal Singh, involved in Crime No. 39/2025 registered at Police Station Kushmi, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), be released on bail on his 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. 8 (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 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. 9. 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