Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Dudheshwar Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o H.N. 376 Street v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharge P.S. EOW/ACB Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6277 of 2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Dudheshwar Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o H.N. 376 Street - 20, Sector - 9C Bokaro City, District - Bokaro Jharkhand - 827009 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Incharge P.S. EOW/ACB Raipur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2023 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018. 2. According to the prosecution's story, Mr. Anil Kumar Valeche, Senior ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.08 20:17:08 +0530 2 Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Regional OfÏce, Raipur, submitted a written complaint on 15.02.2023 at the ACB/EOW ofÏce in Raipur. Based on preliminary findings, it was discovered that an offence under Section 13(1)(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the IPC had been committed by Ms. Ankita Panigrahi, Second Line Assistant Manager at IOB, Rajim Branch, along with other ofÏcials. A report, along with a draft First Information Report (FIR), was submitted for the registration of the offence. At the IOB Rajim Branch, between 02.12.2022 and 09.02.2023, Ms. Ankita Panigrahi (Assistant Manager, Second Line), then Branch Manager Mr. Sunil Kumar, and clerks Mr. Yogesh Patel and Mr. Khemn Lal Kanwar, fraudulently created 25 jewel loans in the names of six account holders. These loans were sanctioned without any supporting documents, vouchers, security, or customer request, and were recorded on different dates for their personal benefit. Additionally, during the same period, funds were illegally transferred via RTGS from the accounts of three fixed deposit holders, and funds were withdrawn from the accounts of eleven savings account holders, all without their consent or request. The embezzled funds were credited to the HDFC Bank accounts of the accused, resulting in a loss of ₹1,65,44,000/- to the bank. This act of criminal breach of trust was committed by the accused in a criminal conspiracy, while misusing their ofÏcial duties and login credentials through the Finacle banking software on the bank’s computer system. Following verification of the complaint, FIR No. 01/2023 was registered against Ms. Ankita Panigrahi and others under Section 13(1)(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 409 IPC, and 3 the case was taken up for investigation. 3. During the investigation, it was found that between 02.12.2022 and 09.02.2023, at IOB’s Special Agriculture Credit Branch, Rajim, fraudulent jewel loans were created in the names of 17 account holders, namely: Mrs. Anupama Kansari, Mrs. Dineshwari Bai Sahu, Mr. Gajju Patel, Mr. Khublal Sahu, Ms. Nandini Dhiwar, Mr. Parmeshwar Sahu, Mr. Premshankar Patel, Ms. Priya Mishra, Mr. Punchh Ram Patel, Mrs. Rani Sonkar, Mr. Shankar Lal Dewangan, Mrs. Tikeshwari Pal, Mrs. Tukeshwari Sahu, Mr. Bhavdeep Dewangan, Mrs. Kunti Bai Sahu, Mr. Nandkumar Sonkar, Mr. Vishnuprasad Sahu. The loans and related transactions were made without any documents, forms, consent, or presence of these individuals. This act violated the ofÏcial duties of the accused and resulted in the embezzlement of Rs. 1,65,44,000/-, causing a financial loss to the bank. The investigation revealed that the accused, Sunil Kumar, Ankita Panigrahi, Yogesh Patel, and Khemn Lal Kanwar, executed this fraud through a well-planned conspiracy, misusing their respective login credentials in the bank’s system. The fraudulent loans were presented as genuine, and the accused misused their ofÏcial positions for personal gain. It is asserted that in a small branch like Rajim, such large-scale embezzlement could not have taken place without the active involvement and knowledge of all these ofÏcials. Moreover, the use of each other’s login IDs and passwords strongly suggests collusion. 4. As per the Indian Overseas Bank’s SOP No. M.I.S. 14343/42022-23 dated 26.04.2022, under Chapter 2: Staff Accountability for Matters Other Than NPA, Clause 11, if a bank ofÏcial’s login ID and password 4 are shared or misused, both the owner of the credentials and the person who misused them are held responsible. Based on facts uncovered during the investigation, additional charges under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 201 IPC were added. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that other co-accused person, namely, Yogesh Patel in MCRC No. 5497 of 2025 vide order dated 23.07.2025 has already been granted regular bail by this Court. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge - sheet has already been filed in the present case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and the other co- accused person, namely, Yogesh Patel in MCRC No. 5497 of 2025 vide order dated 23.07.2025 has already been granted regular bail by this Court, further, the fact that the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 27.04.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of 5 parity. 9. Let the Applicant – Sunil Kumar, involved in Crime No. 01/2023 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 BNSS. 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 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 6 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek