1 CGHC010322352026 2026:CGHC:38445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7679 of 2026 * - Vineet Das S/o- Late Suprabhat Das, Aged About 44 Years Working As Assistant Manager, India Overseas Bank, Branch- Tanjore (Tamil Nadu), Present R/o- House No. 91, 5th Cross, Natarajapuram South Colony, Medical College Raod, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. Permanent Address- R/o- Opposite Of 162-D, Road No. 4D, Ashok Nagar, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus * - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail pertaining to Crime No.452/2022 registered at Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per prosecution case, a written report was lodged on 18.08.2022 by the then Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank against the applicant who was Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Bemetara making allegation that between 08.03.2019 to 27.08.2021, the applicant indiscriminately extended loans to various persons without verifying their financial position or status and caused loss to the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.31 18:23:55 +0530 2 Bank to the tune of Rs.14,56,09,639/-. On such complaint police registered offence against the applicant and 05 other accused persons. 3. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the applicant who was the then Bank Manager, was arrested by the police on 29.07.2026 from Tanjore, Tamil Nadu and at the time of arrest, he was not assigned reasons for arrest by the Police Officer/Arresting Officer. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. He would further contend that a departmental enquiry was also conducted against the applicant, wherein Executive Director of the Bank observed that “Even now, it is not sure of how much monetary loss will finally entail on the Bank and even if there is no or minimal loss by virtue of other subsequent actions that the Bank has taken or would have taken, it does not justify in any way the large- scale transgressions and violations made by the applicant herein.” He would submit that as there is no allegation with regard to causing loss to the Bank and other co-accused persons except 01 have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant may be granted regular on bail. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the non-applicant/State would oppose. He would submit that the applicant was culprit who caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.14,56,09,639/-. He would contend that the applicant in connivance with other accused persons discriminately extended loans to the persons who were otherwise not eligible for grant of loan. He 3 would contend that investigation is going on and till date charge-sheet has not been filed, therefore, the application may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and material available on record. 6. In Crime No. 452/2022, there are 05 accused persons, 01 accused is still absconding, whereas 03 have been enlarged either on anticipatory bail or regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 29.07.2026. 7. Perusal of case diary would show that the applicant was not informed grounds of arrest. The relevant document has also been placed along with this bail application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has held that constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences and it must be communicated in writing. The grounds may be informed to the arrestee orally also 02 hours prior to production of the arrestee. The relevant paragraph no. 66 is reproduced herein below:- “66. In conclusion, it is held that: 66.1 The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNS 2023); 66.2 The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; 66.3 In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 66.4 In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 4 8. Having considered the fact that the applicant was not informed grounds of arrest by Arresting Officer and in the departmental enquiry, it is not found that the applicant caused any loss to the Bank Authority and the applicant is a Bank employee, further the co-accused persons have already been granted either on anticipatory bail or on regular bail, I feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- I. He 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court; II. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; III. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till the disposal of the trial; and, IV. He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future. 10. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti