2026:CGHC:4351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 100 of 2026 Reserved on : 21.01.2026 Delivered on : 27.01.2026 1 - Baniz Bai Kosma, W/o Shri Bhaduram Kosma, Aged About 48 Years R/o H.No. 55, Ward No. 16, Matari Bhavmara, District Balod C.G. 2 - Rewa Ravate, S/o Shri Santuram Ravate, Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 20, Ward No. 2, Indira Chowk, Bharritola (36) Daundi, District Balod C.G. ... Applicant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali District Durg C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Sameer Uraon & Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicants filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, who have apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 213/2021 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants were ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.27 14:59:01 +0530 Directors of the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg (for short “the Bank”) and Mr. Pritpal Belchandan was Chairman of the Bank. It is also case of the prosecution that the Board of Directors (BoD), from 08.04.2014 to 12.05.2020 has embezzled Rs. 1313.50 lakh in the name of construction of godown and from 05.08.2016 to 12.06.2019, they granted benefit to some particular persons in 186 cases in One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme granting them waiver of Rs. 175.61 lakh causing huge financial loss to the Bank thereby the applicants and members of Board of Directors of the Bank embezzled total Rs. 1489.11 Lakh. The Board of Directors by violating rules and procedures has caused loss to the Bank. 3. It is also case of the prosecution that with regard to alleged financial irregularity, complaint was made by Raviprakash Tamrakar, Bank representative, (Vrahattakar Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nankatthi, Distt. Durg) to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Chhattisgarh, thereafter as per order dated 27.10.2020 of Collector/Authorized Officer, Jila Sahkari Kentriya Bank Maryadit, Durg, the matter was enquired by a team of three officials including the Upper Collector, Durg. Aforesaid enquiry team gave its enquiry report dated 03.02.2021 and on the basis of that enquiry report, on being directed by the Collector, Durg, written complaint was made against the Chairman and present applicants, who were Members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Based on that written complaint, the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that against the Chairman proceeding for the same issue has already been initiated under Section 53 (3) of the Co- operative Societies Act and show-cause notice has been issued to the Chairman and the then members of Board of Directors on 11.07.2019 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies of Chhattisgarh, in which reply has been filed by the applicants and thereafter the matter has not been proceeded further by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur. 5. He would further submit that the decisions regarding construction of godowns as well as grant of One Time Settlement (OTS) benefits were taken collectively by the Board of Directors in duly convened meetings and strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, guidelines and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and Cooperative Department. The applicants, being only the Directors, had no individual role in execution of works or sanction of individual OTS cases. He would further submit that the enquiry conducted is administrative in nature and the enquiry report itself does not attribute any specific overt act or dishonest intention to the applicants and there is no material to suggest that the applicants derived any personal benefit from the alleged transactions. 6. He would further submit that the main allegation is against one Pritpal Belchandan, who at the relevant time was working as Chairman of the Bank and he had filed various petitions before this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking directions for conducting elections which were long overdue. Pursuant to such petitions, directions were issued for holding elections, however, since the then Government was not inclined to conduct the same, an FIR was lodged during pendency of the petition seeking protection. After his arrest, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet have been filed against him. He would further submit that no incriminating material has been found by the investigating agency against the Directors and the applicants, therefore, no charge-sheet has been filed against them. He would further submit that acts done by the Bank through collective decisions of its Board of Directors, the individual Directors cannot be impleaded or held to be liable, much less for any alleged criminality, in absence of specific allegations or overt acts attributable to them. He would further submit that the applicants, as Directors, acted bonafidely and in the best interest of the Bank, strictly in accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, and with the objective of safeguarding and uplifting the farmers of the region by constructing godowns for safe storage of agricultural produce. 7. It is also submitted that in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Naman Singh Vs. State of UP [(2019) 2 SCC 344] no FIR can be registered on direction of the Collector. It is submitted that the whole case against the applicants is based on documentary evidence and all the documents have already been seized from the Bank, therefore further custodial interrogation of applicants is not required in the present case. He would further submit that registration of FIR is the effect of malice in law and fact. The applicants have clean antecedents and have never been involved in any criminal case previously and an ex-parte report of the enquiry team has been used to implicate the applicants, leaving other members of Board of Directors. He would further submit that the decision taken by the Board of Directors of giving financial assistance and loans to the affiliated societies of the bank and for construction of godowns and waiver of loan of farmers which were actually only on interest part and not on principal amount, have been taken as per bye-laws of the Bank. In the meeting of Board of Directors, the Joint Registrar/ concerned officer of Co-operative Societies were also present while taking decision by the Board of Directors. The applicants have neither been benefited by any grant of waiver nor embezzled any amount. He would further submit that initiation of proceedings against the applicants is politically motivated as it has been initiated on account of political rivalry between the political parties. He would further submit that the applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of their absconding or evading the process of law and they are ready and willing to abide all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail and would pray for enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposing the bail application would submit that the applicants were the Directors of the Bank during the relevant period and were in complete control of the affairs of the Bank. The prosecution case discloses that from 08.04.2014 to 12.05.2020, an amount of Rs. 1313.50 lakh was embezzled in the name of construction of godowns, and from 05.08.2016 to 12.06.2019, undue benefit was granted to selected individuals in 186 cases under the One Time Settlement Scheme, resulting in waiver of Rs. 175.61 lakh. He would further submit that the total loss caused to the Bank is Rs. 1489.11 lakh, which is public money and the acts were committed in gross violation of statutory rules, circulars and established procedures governing cooperative banks. The enquiry was conducted by a three-member committee, including the Upper Collector, Durg who has clearly found serious financial irregularities and abuse of official position by the applicants. He would further submit that the offence alleged under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC are grave and serious in nature involving criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. The applicants, being highly influential persons, are in a position to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, most of whom are officials and members of cooperative societies. Considering the magnitude of the scam, custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, no case for grant of bail is made out and would pray for dismissal of the bail application. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and material available on record. 10. From the material collected by the prosecution, particularly the enquiry report, it is quite vivid that there is allegation of pilferage of public funds by purchasing Laptop of Rs. 7.25 lakh which is on a higher rate and was distributed to the Directors wherein the applicants are also prima facie beneficiaries of the said allotment. The allegation is also against them that the Chairman of the Board has caused corruption while conducting election and prima facie involvement of the applicants cannot be denied as it is a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank in which prima facie involvement of the applicants cannot be denied as nothing has been placed on record by the applicants to prima facie dislodge this fact. Even otherwise, to elicit the truth their custodial interrogation is required. 11. Similarly so far as allegation with regard to construction of godowns, in the report, it has been prima facie observed that the Bank was given license for banking business and not for non-banking business, as such the sanction of the grant is against the Constitution of the Bank. Similarly the allegation with regard to One Time Settlement scheme, prima facie it has been observed in the report that illegally relaxation for Rs. 6.74 lakhs, Rs. 42.06 lakhs, Rs. 105.24 lakhs, relaxation was granted to 186 persons without any provisions made in this behalf but prima facie no such material has been placed on record by the applicant that One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme has been approved by the Reserve Bank of India for Co-operative Banks constituted under the Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, the applicants being Directors are jointly and severely responsible for the said alleged lapses committed by the Board of Directors. 12. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings of civil nature under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 has already been initiated, therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding, is an abuse of process of law, therefore, the applicants are entitled to get anticipatory bail, is being considered by this Court. It is well established position of law that civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings works in a different sphere and there is no rider for continuation of criminal proceedings even if civil proceeding has been initiated as object of both the proceedings altogether different as in a criminal proceeding, its object is to punish for commission of offence and in civil proceeding, its object is to make good the default which has been committed by the person. As such, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants that the continuation of criminal proceedings is illegal, deserves to be rejected. 13. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights and it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of power of arrest and protect innocent individuals from harassment, is being considered by this Court. It is true that the provisions of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights but it is equally well settled position of law that a balance between the safeguarding individual rights and protecting have to be maintained by the Courts. In the present case, there is allegation of pilferage of huge public money, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, maintaining the balance between the relief of anticipatory bail and protecting public interest, it is not a case where this Court should enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that power of granting anticipatory bail should be exercised with great degree of circumspection and should not be exercised in routine manner. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah Vs. Kamal Dayani [(2025) 1 SCC 753] has held in paragraphs 57 & 58 as under:- “57. This Court has time and again held that the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail should be exercised with great degree of circumspection. Reference in this regard may be made to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24]. 58. Thus, the power to grant anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in a routine manner and the Courts are expected to use this provision with a great degree of circumspection. Once, a Court bearing in mind the strict parameters applicable to grant of anticipatory bail exercises such power, then in such a situation, giving a handle to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused, would virtually negate and frustrate the very purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that the Courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail application routinely impose the restrictive condition whereby, the Investigating Officers are granted blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused, in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct contravention to the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal(supra). The Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari(supra) does not hold good in law as the same runs contrary to the ratio of Sushila Agarwal(supra) and thus, the same stands impliedly overruled.” 15. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah (supra) and also considering the gravity of the offence as the allegation against the applicants are pilferage of public funds, as such though applicant No. 1 is a lady and belongs to ST community similarly applicant No. 2 who also belongs to ST community or there may be political rivalry between the political parties still it does not immune them to go through the procedure of law and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as aforestated. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the applicants should be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 17. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present bail application and this would not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which would proceed in accordance with law and decide the case on its own merits on the basis of evidence led before it. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun