1 2025:CGHC:59266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8901 of 2025 Nikesh Pandey S/o Narendra Pandey Aged About 41 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Naresh) R/o L.I.G. 396, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Heerapur Tatibandh Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer City Kotwali Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 316/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.06 12:27:16 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Balbir Sharma, lodged a written complaint on 28.06.2025 at Civil Kotwali Police Station, Raigarh District, alleging that he was a customer of Punjab National Bank. The complainant stated that he was introduced to a MetLife insurance policy by one Salauddin, who directed him to the applicant, an employee in the bank’s insurance section. The applicant explained the policy, and the complainant agreed to have it issued in the name of his wife, Bala Sharma. On 11.06.2020, the complainant handed over a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant, which was processed by Manoranjan Parida. Later, upon inquiring at the bank, the complainant discovered that the policy bearing No. 23306686 was forged and was not in the name of Mr. Bansi Lal Koul or the complainant. Consequently, an offence was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 417, or 34 of the IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no evidence of cheating or deceit on his part. The complainant has alleged that she gave a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 11/06/2020, but the same was deposited by her into her own account in the presence of the applicant, and the insurance policy was issued by Manoranjan Parida, as reflected in the seized policy document dated 04/06/2020 and annexed account statement (Annexure A-3 of the bail application). The complainant never gave any installments directly to the applicant, 3 nor is there any allegation to that effect. The allegation of a forged or fabricated policy is baseless, as there is no evidence linking the applicant to its issuance. The applicant’s role was limited to providing information about the insurance, and he has not committed any crime. Moreover, the incident allegedly occurred on 11/06/2020, but the FIR was lodged on 28/06/2025 without any explanation for the delay. No seizure or incriminating material has been recovered from the applicant, and the prosecution has failed to establish any culpable role. Considering that the applicant has been in custody since 01/07/2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and the matter does not pertain to a heinous offence, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. So far criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, he has two more criminal antecedents registered against him which have been lodged with the same allegation. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the allegations made by the complainant are serious in nature, and the investigation has revealed prima facie evidence implicating the accused in connection with the issuance of the insurance policy. It is submitted that the matter requires detailed inquiry, and the role of the applicant cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. Therefore, the matter deserves careful consideration by the trial court, and it is submitted that any prayer for bail should be considered in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the need for the investigation to be completed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material collected during investigation, it is evident that the allegations against the applicant do not prima facie disclose any criminal role on his part. The complainant herself has deposited the cheque amount into her own account in the presence of the applicant, and the insurance policy was issued by another official, Manoranjan Parida, as reflected in the policy document and account statement (Annexure A-3 of the bail application). There is no direct evidence that the applicant issued or forged any policy, nor is there any allegation that he received any installments from the complainant. The applicant’s role appears to be limited to providing information regarding the insurance policy. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of over five years, which has not been satisfactorily explained. Considering that the applicant has been in custody since 01.07.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and the offence alleged is not of a heinous nature, this Court is of the view that there are sufficient grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Let applicant, Nikesh Pandey, involved in Crime No. 316/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal 5 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 6 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek