1 CGHC010296502026 2026:CGHC:34557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1274 of 2026 Nitin Nigam S/o Late Kailash Prasad Nigam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Parsada, Kenwatpara, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. For Complainant : Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.07 11:19:16 +0530 2 with Crime No.375/2026 registered at Police Station – Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Shakeel Qureshi, submitted a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, alleging that he had availed a housing loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from M/s Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, by mortgaging his property situated at Mouza Torwa, Plot No.41 (Khasra No.175/13), admeasuring 2008.50 square feet. The loan was repayable in 180 monthly instalments (EMIs) of Rs.16,692/- each commencing from 01.04.2012 and he had regularly paid the instalments till the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is alleged that as per the statement issued by the finance company on 09.12.2025, a sum of Rs.27,58,874/- had already been paid towards the loan, though the complainant claims to have paid an amount even in excess thereof. It is further alleged that co-accsued Arpana Biswas, the then Manager of the finance company, in connivance with the present Applicant, deliberately and dishonestly failed to credit certain amounts deposited by the complainant in Loan Account No.01102080000084 with a fraudulent intention. It is alleged that despite such payments, an outstanding liability of 3 Rs.15,97,657/- was falsely shown as on 08.12.2025, with an intention to initiate proceedings for attachment of the mortgaged property. It is further alleged that out of the payments made by the complainant Rs.1,60,000/-, Rs.2,75,000/- in cash on 30.03.2019 and Rs.3,00,000/- through Demand Draft on 05.02.2024, aggregating to Rs.7,35,000/-, only Rs.2,75,000/- was credited to the loan account, whereas the remaining Rs.4,60,000/- was dishonestly misappropriated by the co-accused in connivance with the present Applicant. Based on these allegations, the offence as mentioned above has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant was never an employee of Cent Bank Home Finance Limited and was engaged through an outsourcing agency, namely Veema Hospitality Private Limited, Bhopal, merely as a contractual Recovery Officer. It is submitted that his duties were confined to serving recovery notices and persuading defaulting borrowers to regularize their loan accounts and that he neither handled cash transactions nor maintained loan accounts, accepted deposits, issued receipts or made 4 accounting entries, which were exclusively within the domain of the Bank officials. It is further submitted that the complainant had persistently defaulted in repayment of the housing loan, whereupon the loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated as early as the year 2014. he further submits that pursuant thereto, demand notice under Section 13(2), measures under Section 13(4) and proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act culminated in an order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur directing taking over of possession of the secured asset. It is submitted that during the possession proceedings conducted in the year 2019, the complainant himself acknowledged the outstanding liability and furnished a written undertaking to clear the dues, on the basis of which possession proceedings were temporarily deferred, but he again committed defaults, resulting in further recovery proceedings and notices. It is further submitted that the complainant also approached the Permanent Lok Adalat in Case No.188/2023, thereby admitting the subsistence of the loan transaction and recovery proceedings. It is contended that the allegation of misappropriation of Rs.4,60,000/-, including the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- paid 5 through demand draft, is wholly false as the Bank records and reconciliation statement clearly reflect credit of the said amount and the Applicant had no role whatsoever in processing or accounting the same. It is further contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged only in the year 2026, despite the recovery proceedings having remained pending since 2014, solely to frustrate the lawful recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and to pressurize persons connected with the recovery process. It is lastly submitted that the dispute, if any, pertains to accounting of payments under a loan transaction and is purely civil and contractual in nature, which has been given a colour of criminality and therefore, as the trial is likely to take quite some time for its conclusion, the present Applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel and the Complainant’s Counsel oppose the application and submit that the present Applicant is a named accused in the FIR and has actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the Applicant and having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It 6 is further submitted that the Applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, all of which are pending consideration. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant was engaged merely as a contractual Recovery Officer through an outsourcing agency and was not entrusted with maintaining loan accounts or handling cash transactions, the fact that the allegations primarily relate to accounting entries and adjustment of payments in the loan account maintained by the Bank, the fact that the dispute arises out of recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, which had commenced much prior to the registration of the present FIR, the fact that the FIR came to be lodged after initiation of such recovery proceedings, the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. 6. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Nitin Nigam, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released 7 on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant/s 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/her/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant/s shall not involve himself/herself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya