1 2025:CGHC:59264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8374 of 2025 Saiyad Shahid Ali S/o Akbar Ali Aged About 45 Years R/o 161, Juni Line Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kotwali,district Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Advocate 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- Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 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 namely Smt Anita Rateria has lodged a report before the concerning Police Station alleging that she is the customer of Punjab National Bank Branch Raigarh and the co-accused namely Md. Salimuddin who works in the PNB is Known to her for past. On persuasion of co-accused person she has availed PNB MetLife insurance policy, the period of insurance policy was 7 years. The complainant was required to pay installment of Rs 50,000 per year. It is alleged by the complainant that she used to pay the installment amount to the co-accused person every year. The last installment for the year 2023 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the present applicant. It is also alleged by the complainant that after completion of the policy term, when she enquired about the maturity amount it was found by the complainant that the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,52,277/- was not deposited in the PNB MetLife company and the same was misappropriated by the accused persons. On the basis of complaint, initially the offence under section 420 of IPC was registered and thereafter completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed for commission of offence punishable U/s 420,409,467,468,471 read with section 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as no installment was ever paid to him and he is not even known to the complainant. It is urged that although the complainant claims to have discovered the non-deposit of installments in 2023, the FIR was lodged only 3 on 10.07.2025 without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, and despite the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, no preliminary inquiry was conducted. It is submitted that the applicant had already left PNB MetLife on 20.08.2021 due to family issues, subsequently joined SUD Life on 21.09.2023, and had shifted to Bilaspur, which is also reflected in the representation made to the Superintendent of Police by his father. Even as per the complainant, earlier installments for 2021 and 2022 were paid to co-accused Salimuddin, and the alleged last installment of Rs.50,000/- was allegedly given to the applicant on 07.11.2023 when he was no longer employed with PNB MetLife. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, he has no previous criminal antecedents registered against him and the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2025, charge-sheet has already been filed and there is likely to be caused delay in the trail and therefore the applicant may kindly be granted bail. 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, including the last installment of Rs.50,000/- allegedly handed to Syed Shahid Ali on 07.11.2023. 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, and the fact that the allegations against the applicant are primarily documentary in nature and the prosecution has not demonstrated any requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the settled principles governing grant of bail and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.08.2025 and charge-sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant, Saiyad Shahid Ali, involved in Crime No. 331/2025 5 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 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, 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. 6 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