1 2025:CGHC:59265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9100 of 2025 Nikesh Kumar Pandey S/o Narendra Pandey Aged About 41 Years 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. 331/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.06 12:27:17 +0530 2 Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Smt. Anita Rateria, lodged a written report on 10.07.2025 at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, stating that she is a customer of Punjab National Bank. She came in contact with co-accused Salauddin, who introduced her to a Metlife insurance policy and directed her to meet the present applicant working in the insurance section of the said bank. The applicant informed her about the policy, and thereafter a policy bearing No. 22361954 was issued in her name. The complainant used to deposit monthly cash instalments of Rs. 50,000/-, sometimes with co-accused Salauddin and Sayed Ali, and sometimes with the applicant. It is alleged that during 2019–20, she handed over two instalments of Rs. 52,277/- and Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant, which were deposited, and deposit slips were given to her. However, in 2021– 22, when she handed over subsequent instalments of Rs. 50,000/- each to the co-accused persons, they allegedly did not deposit the amounts and kept delaying. Later, she discovered that a total of Rs. 2,52,227/- had not been deposited, leading to the registration of offences against the applicant and co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence is made out against the present applicant, as the complainant herself admitted handing over only two installments of Rs. 52,277/- and 3 Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant, for which she received bank deposit slips (Annexure A-3 of the bail application), clearly showing that no cheating or deceit was committed. The applicant’s role was limited to providing information about the insurance policy, and he had no further contact with the complainant thereafter, offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 417, and 34 IPC are not attracted. Furthermore, alleged incident is dated 07.11.2023, but the FIR was lodged on 10.07.2025, with no explanation for the nearly two-year delay. Further, the prosecution has not seized anything from the applicant except his Aadhaar card, and no evidence connects him to the alleged crime. Considering that the applicant has been in custody since 28.07.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and the offence is not of a heinous nature, he deserves 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 by the present complainant only with the same allegation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicant and also the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the record shows the complainant lodged a written report on 10.07.2025 alleging that she had been induced by bank employees—Nikesh Pandey, Syed Shahid Ali, and Salimuddin to obtain Policy No. 22361954 and was required to pay an annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. She claims to have regularly deposited 4 installments in cash with these persons, however, upon completion of the policy term, it was revealed that only two installment Rs.53,500/- (2017) and Rs. 52,178.91 (2018) had ever been deposited, and an amount of Rs. 2,52,277/- had been misappropriated. The Branch Manager of PNB MetLife confirmed that no cash installments were received. As the FIR is a named report and the offence involves serious financial fraud, it is contended that no ground for grant of bail is made out. 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 observed that the applicant’s role in the alleged transaction appears limited to providing information about the insurance policy, and the complainant herself has admitted handing over only two installments of Rs. 52,277/- and Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant, for which she received bank deposit slips (Annexure A-3 of the bail application). No evidence has been seized from the applicant except his Aadhaar card, and there is no material directly implicating him in the alleged misappropriation. Although the FIR relates to financial irregularities, the delay of nearly two years in lodging the report has not been explained. The applicant has been in custody since 28.07.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the offence is not of a heinous nature. Considering 5 these aspects, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Let applicant, Nikesh Kumar Pandey, involved in Crime No. 331/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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, 6 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 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