1 2025:CGHC:50967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5395 of 2025 Rajendra Prasad Pandey, S/o. Bagheshwari Pandey, Aged About 60 Years Working As A Co-Operative Bank Officer (A.C.S), Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, R/o Mahavir Ward, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, Dist- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh (Through Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, (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 Kusmi, 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. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.15 13:18:10 +0530 2 10.04.2024 made by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh, District Balrampur, addressed to the Regional Office of NABARD, Raipur, alleging suspected financial irregularities in various accounts maintained at the Kusmi and Shankargarh Branches of the District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur. Pursuant to the said complaint, NABARD, vide its communication dated 26.04.2024, directed the Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, to conduct an inquiry into the said allegations and submit a compliance report. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the accused applicant, Rajendra Prasad Pandey, who was then serving as Assistant Chief Supervisor and holding additional charge as Nodal Officer, District Balrampur, was instructed to examine the records of the disputed accounts. Accordingly, vide communication dated 01.05.2024, the said accused submitted a preliminary inquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, stating that the complaint appeared to be misconceived and that no irregularities were detected in the accounts bearing numbers 604007085677, 604007009117, and 604007013601, maintained at the Shankargarh Branch. Acting upon the said preliminary report, the Bank, vide letter dated 03.05.2024, informed NABARD that no apparent irregularities were found in the said accounts. However, NABARD subsequently directed the Bank to conduct a detailed audit through its concurrent auditors, M/s Naveen Upadhyay & Associates, who, after due verification, submitted a Fact Audit Report dated 05.02.2025, alleging large-scale financial irregularities and misappropriation of Rs. 13.14 crores from multiple accounts. Thereafter, a Special Audit was conducted by M/s Tank Khatri & Associates, appointed by the Bank, and in their report dated 05.04.2025, it was found that the total amount misappropriated was approximately Rs. 26.47 3 crores. The said report revealed several fictitious and forged accounts, and large inter-branch NEFT transactions to private entities such as Mahamaya Construction and Jamuna Alankar, showing the involvement of several officials and employees of the Bank, including the present accused applicant. Based on the aforesaid audit report and findings, the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), leading to the registration of Crime No. 39/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During investigation, it was found that several officers and employees of the Bank, both serving and retired, were involved in the said criminal conspiracy, who, in collusion with each other, fraudulently operated government and cooperative accounts by forging documents and carrying out unauthorized transfers to private accounts. The accused applicant, in his capacity as Assistant Chief Supervisor and Nodal Officer, was responsible for supervision and verification of branch operations and, by his acts and omissions, facilitated the concealment of such irregularities. It was further revealed during investigation that despite being aware of the ongoing financial misconduct, the accused applicant submitted a misleading preliminary report to his superiors, certifying that no irregularities had occurred. His failure to disclose the true state of the accounts resulted in continued fraudulent transactions, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and the Government and wrongful gain to the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. Thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind 4 bars, and such detention would amount to an empty formality. He submits that the applicant has never been posted at the Kusmi Branch of the District Cooperative Central Bank, which forms the nucleus of the alleged financial irregularities. He neither had operational control nor supervisory oversight over the accounts implicated in the alleged offence. The case against him rests solely on his designation and prior administrative assignments elsewhere, without any nexus to the specific acts alleged. He further submits that the applicant was arrested on 26.05.2025 and remained in continuous custody for over fifteen days. However, during this entire period, no incriminating document, material recovery, or disclosure was made linking the applicant to the alleged embezzlement. Despite having ample opportunity, the investigation has not unearthed a single transaction attributable to him. He also submits that the prosecution’s case originates from an internal administrative complaint initiated by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh, dated 10.04.2024, followed by a direction from NABARD dated 26.04.2024 to examine suspicious transactions. The applicant, in his capacity as Nodal Officer, merely responded with a preliminary assessment based on the records available to him. To criminalize such a bona fide administrative act is grossly unjust and without legal foundation. The complaint submitted by the applicant on 01.05.2024 clearly reflected that no financial irregularities were discernible upon record examination. At best, the applicant’s initial conclusion may be deemed erroneous; however, an error in administrative judgment cannot be equated with criminal intent, especially in the absence of any personal benefit, forgery, or financial gain accruing to the applicant. He also submits that the arrest was carried out without compliance with Sections 36, 47, and 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. No arrest memo was issued, 5 no prior notice was served, and no intimation was given to the applicant’s family members at the time of arrest. Such an arrest, bereft of procedural fairness, vitiates the very basis of pre-trial custody. He submits that though a transfer order was issued on 25.07.2024 posting the applicant to Ramanujganj, the same was never served upon him. Owing to its non- service, the applicant could not join his new posting and was abruptly suspended on 06.08.2024. The prosecution’s reliance on this suspension to draw an adverse inference is misplaced and factually untenable. He further submits that both the Face Audit (dated 05.02.2025) and the Special Audit (dated 05.04.2025) conducted by M/s Tank Khatri & Associates allege irregularities in various accounts but do not attribute any actionable role to the applicant. His name does not appear in any NEFT record, authorization chain, or cash trail associated with the alleged scam amounting to Rs. 26.47 crores. The applicant has been implicated solely on account of his official designation as Assistant Chief Supervisor and his temporary discharge of duties as Nodal Officer, District Balrampur, during the period when a routine administrative complaint was received from NABARD, based on the letter dated 10.04.2024 from the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Shankargarh. In compliance with NABARD’s direction dated 26.04.2024, the applicant, acting in good faith and within the scope of his official duties, is alleged to have submitted a preliminary report dated 01.05.2024 stating that no financial irregularities were found in the specified accounts. It is respectfully submitted that even this alleged report relied upon by the prosecution to attribute complicity to the applicant does not bear the applicant’s original signature. The applicant neither authenticated nor finalized the said report, and no material exists on record to show that he consciously adopted or endorsed its contents. In any event, the said 6 report was not conclusive or forensic in nature and was based merely on limited records available at that time. He also submits that subsequent audits conducted months later revealed financial irregularities in entirely different accounts, unrelated to the scope of the applicant’s preliminary review. The prosecution’s case, therefore, seeks to retroactively criminalize an unsigned internal communication made in the discharge of official duty, without any link to forgery, fabrication, financial gain, or fraudulent authorization by the applicant. The implication of the applicant appears to stem from a broad-brush theory of institutional conspiracy, wherein administrative lapses have been mischaracterized as criminal offences. The FIR does not allege that the applicant opened any fictitious account, authorized any NEFT transaction, or received any benefit. To draw criminal culpability solely from his hierarchical position, without direct evidence, is wholly impermissible in law. In the absence of any signed report or specific act attributable to him, the applicant’s continued incarceration amounts to a manifest miscarriage of justice. He submits that only basis for implicating the applicant is the assertion that he submitted a “misleading” preliminary report. Such attribution neither constitutes nor satisfies the ingredients of conspiracy under Section 120- B IPC, in the absence of mens rea or participation in the commission of any offence. It is submitted that the mere seriousness of the allegation cannot justify the denial of bail unless there exists a likelihood of tampering with evidence or absconding. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Sarguja, owns immovable property, and has deep family and social roots, making the possibility of absconding illusory. He 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. 7 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 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], on the basis of a complaint by the Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Ambikapur. It was alleged that the accused persons, including the present applicant, in their respective official capacities, misappropriated amounts from 10–15 different bank accounts. Upon the complaint being brought to the notice of the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh, an inquiry committee was constituted, which found irregularities in 138 entries, allegedly covering the period from 2013–14 to 2023–24, involving a total sum of Rs. 26,47,82,462/-. On the written complaint of Shri Arvind Shrivastava, District Cooperative Central Bank, Head Office Ambikapur, dated 26.05.2025, further investigation revealed financial irregularities of Rs. 19,22,73,908/- in the account of Aadim Jati Samiti, Jamdisaan, Rs. 91,57,000/- in the account of CEO, Janpad Panchayat Shankargarh, Rs. 3,19,20,700/- in the NREGA Dhaneshpur account, and Rs. 40,54,000/- transferred through NEFT to Jamuna Alankar. Pursuant to directions of the Bank dated 13.02.2025, a Special Audit by M/s Tank Khatri & Associates revealed additional irregular transfers of Rs 1,36,95,199.93/- in the account of accused Ashok Kumar Soni, Rs. 8 46,44,841/- in the account of accused Prakash Kumar Singh, Rs. 96,36,814/- in the account of accused Sudesh Kumar Yadav, and Rs. 30,00,000/- to Mahamaya Construction, totalling Rs. 26,47,82,462.93/-. The present applicant was arrested on 26.05.2025. During investigation, his memorandum statement was recorded, wherein he admitted having known co-accused Ashok Kumar Soni and having maintained financial dealings with him, including transfer of Rs. 30 lakhs to Mahamaya Construction and depositing small amounts in the accounts of his family members. A mobile phone purchased from the said proceeds was seized on 02.06.2025. The investigation has revealed the involvement of several co-accused—namely, Ashok Kumar Soni, Sudesh Kumar Yadav, Prakash Singh, Attaval Singh, Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Shamal Sai, Vikas Chand Pandavi, Tabarak Ali, Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Vijay Uikey, Laxman Prasad Dewangan, Rajendra Gupta and Navneet Soni— in the large-scale embezzlement and misappropriation of government funds through criminal conspiracy, 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 9 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, while holding the post of Assistant Chief Supervisor and temporarily discharging the duties of Nodal Officer, District Balrampur, he failed to disclose the financial irregularities. Although the main allegations are against the co-accused 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 – Rajendra Prasad Pandey, involved in Crime No. 39/2025 registered at Police Station Kusmi, 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 10 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. (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