1 CGHC010312932026 2026:CGHC:37173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1312 of 2026 Jolly B. Phillips W/o B. Philips Aged About 54 Years R/o Cent Bank Home Finance Limited Corporate Office, 6th Floor, M.M.O. Building Central Bank Of India Hutatma Chowk Mumbai (Maharashtra) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Advocate HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER ON BOARD 19.08.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 230/2026 registered at Police SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.08.20 10:58:46 +0530 2 Station – Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant, Chandrika Prasad Kushwaha, lodged the present FIR in respect of the incident that allegedly took place on 23.11.2016, alleging that Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth, being the promoters of M/s Waliya Construction (described in the FIR as “Waliya Company”), were constructing a multi-storey residential building near Tarbahar Underbridge, situated at Bilaspur (C.G.), and had entered into an agreement with the complainant for the purchase of a flat, more specifically Flat No. 402, situated on the third floor, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. It has been alleged that co-accused Rajesh Seth informed the complainant that he had good relations with the officials of Cent Bank and that the complainant’s loan would be sanctioned through the said bank. Thereafter, the complainant was introduced to the Bank Manager, namely, Shashi Bhushan Karn (co-accused), who assured the complainant that his loan would be sanctioned and requested him to provide his Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and Form-16 for the preceding three years. Subsequently, Shashi Bhushan Karn sent the aforesaid documents to one Nitin 3 Nigam (co-accused) for verification and further directed the complainant to hand over a cheque of Rs. 5,700/- to Aparna Biswas. Thereafter, Shashi Bhushan Karn informed the complainant that he did not have the authority to sanction a loan exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- and that such loan was required to be sanctioned by the Regional Manager’s Office. Thereafter, the loan was sanctioned, and Rajesh Seth informed the complainant that all the formalities had been completed and invited him for registration of the subject property on 18.02.2017. At the time of registration, Rajesh Seth assured the complainant that the construction of the subject property would be completed within one year. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that a notice had been issued by the Bank of Baroda in respect of possession of the entire property, which was brought to the notice of Rajesh Seth and Bank Manager Shashi Bhushan Karn, to which they replied that they were not aware of any such proceedings. It has been further alleged that Rajesh Seth was acting in connivance with all the accused persons, who were bank employees, and that the entire loan amount was disbursed by the bank and deposited into the bank accounts of Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth. It has been alleged that the first disbursement of Rs. 13,18,000/- and the second 4 disbursement of Rs. 9,20,000/- were made by the bank and that the same were sanctioned/verified by the present applicant. That, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the FIR was registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.), on 11.07.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. A copy of the FIR dated 11.07.2026 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth, who were the promoters of M/s Waliya Construction and were directly concerned with the construction and sale of the subject property. It is further submitted that the allegations against the aforesaid co- accused are substantially different and more direct in nature, whereas no specific allegation has been made against the present applicant regarding the construction or sale of the subject property or receipt of any amount arising therefrom. It is also submitted that the loan amount was disbursed by the bank and credited to the bank accounts of Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth, and no amount was credited to or received by the present applicant. Thus, the role attributed to the present 5 applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of the aforesaid co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is substantially based on documentary evidence, that the applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. It is contended that the applicant, being a bank official, was involved in the processing, verification and sanctioning of the loan amount, and that pursuant to the acts and omissions attributed to the applicant, substantial amounts were disbursed in favour of the co-accused Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth. Learned counsel further submits that the role of the applicant cannot be considered in isolation from the acts of the other co-accused persons and that the 6 applicant had facilitated the disbursement of the loan amount despite the alleged irregularities in the transaction. It is further submitted that the matter requires proper investigation and that custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary to ascertain the complete facts and circumstances of the transaction, including the manner in which the loan was processed, verified and disbursed. It is also submitted that, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Therefore, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, and further considering the fact that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth, who were the promoters of M/s Waliya Construction and were directly concerned with the construction and sale of the subject property, whereas there 7 is no specific allegation against the present applicant regarding the construction or sale of the subject property or receipt of any amount therefrom, this Court finds it appropriate to consider the prayer of the applicant. It is also relevant that the loan amount in question was disbursed by the bank and credited to the bank accounts of Rajesh Seth and Rajni Seth, and there is no allegation that any part of the said amount was credited to or received by the present applicant. Further, the allegations against the present applicant are primarily based upon documentary material relating to the processing and disbursement of the loan, and custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant 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 – Jolly B. Philips, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall 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 8 Court. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saurabh