1 2025:CGHC:5315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 153 of 2025 Dr. Rajesh Degan S/o Dr. J.K. Degan Aged About 65 Years R/o D-09 Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma alongwith Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 5/2025 registered at Police Station – Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the applicant while being posted as AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Medical Health OfÏcer (Class-1) allegedly entrusted with the property being a public servant, has utilized the same for his own purpose and thus, as per prosecution story, liable to be prosecuted and for this reason a report has been lodged by Dr. Jyanti Singh, Insurance Medical OfÏcer (Class-1) and based on which offence under Section 409 of IPC has been registered vide FIR No.0005/2025 on 9.1.2025 by Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur. A glance of FIR will reveal to this Court that the allegation against applicant is of self-user of the amount entrusted to applicant allegedly of Rs.19,20,000/- withdrawn by three self-cheques and said fact has also been admitted allegedly by applicant herein. Version of the applicant is that the applicant is not in any way involved with the said offence and in fact, followed the instructions of superior ofÏcers i.e. of Labour Secretary and the Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, who directed the applicant to withdraw the amount as the process of obtaining amount from the government will take a longer time and that will affect the interest of the insured beneficiaries and as and when the amount will be obtained from the State Government, the same will be redeposited in the account. Applicant has followed such instruction of the superior ofÏcers and after withdrawing the amount, delivered the same to his superior i.e. Labour Secretary. However, the applicant has come to know about his fault when an Enquiry Committee has been constituted by the Department where also applicant has stated about his moral duties to follow the instructions of the superiors. Be that as it may, the superior ofÏcer has not accepted 3 receipt of the amount and in this manner, the applicant has been involved in the said act of omission and commission. Realizing the said fact that the applicant has committed wrong i.e. of following instructions of superior ofÏcers and ought not to have withdrawn the amount on the oral instructions of superior ofÏcers and when the ofÏcer superior to him has denied receipt of such amount, the applicant managed his affairs and deposited the entire amount withdrawn from SBI account of his wife on 10.1.2025 and deposited the entire amount through RTGS in Bank Account No.24260100014413 (ESI Test) and also informed the concerned authority through post. Applicant is already facing a departmental enquiry in this regard and thus present is the case of double jeopardy. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that there is no mens rea on the part of applicant in withdrawal of the amount and as there was no such intention to use and enjoy the property entrusted to the applicant as present is the case of following the direction of the superior ofÏcer, regarding which departmental enquiry is also pending. Applicant is a government servant and in case of his arrest and languishment in jail, he will definitely suffer irreparable law because as per service jurisprudence the applicant will be suspended after certain period of languishment. In this view of the matter also, there is a need of protecting the liberty of applicant and allowing him to serve in his said capacity. Applicant is of the view that the truth will come out during departmental enquiry and even if it is not unearth in view of denial of receipt of amount by his 4 superior, since the applicant has already deposited the amount in the account of department after withdrawing the amount from the account of his wife, as is clear from the documents enclosed, the applicant is entitled for protection in exercise of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that the applicant has only acted upon oral instruction of his superior ofÏcer and transferred the said amount, but later on the applicant has already deposited the said amount on 10.01.2025 through RTGS in Bank Account No.24260100014413 (ESI Test) and also informed the concerned authority through post, further applicant is already facing a departmental enquiry in this regard. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that amount of Rs.19,20,000/- withdrawn by the applicant from the Tagore Nagar Branch of Bank of Baroda on 21.11.2022, 21.02.2023 and 16.05.2023 has already been deposited back by the applicant in the account of Bank of Baroda, Vivekanand Nagar Branch, Raipur on 10.01.2025 through RTGS in Bank Account No.24260100014413 (ESI Test). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material 5 available in case diary, also considering the fact that on account of withdrawal of Rs.19,20,000/- by the applicant from the Tagore Nagar Branch of Bank of Baroda on 21.11.2022, 21.02.2023 and 16.05.2023, the department set up an enquiry committee wherein, committee decided that since there is no acknowledgment regarding giving the amount to the then Labour Secretary, the said amount should be recovered from the applicant and thereafter, in lieu of rectifying the error, the applicant has already deposited Rs. 19,20,047.20/- in the account number 24260100014413 (ESI Test) of Bank of Baroda, Vivekanand Nagar branch, Raipur, through RTGS on 10.01.2025, the said fact is also reflected from the bail rejection order passed by the trial Court, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dr. Rajesh Degan, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the surety shall submit a 6 copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil