Chattisgarh High Court
Niyojit Biswas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2026:CGHC:14960
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2285 of 2026
1. Niyojit Biswas S/o Arun Biswas Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.
B-13-67, Kalyani Nadia Kalyani. (West Bangal)741235
... Applicant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S.- Vidahan
Sabha District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Indian Bank Through Branch Manager, Branch Dondekhurd, Raipur
District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Mohammed Fayzan Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadaw, Dy. Government Advocate with Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Panel Lawyer For Respondent : Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate No. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 01.04.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this Third Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested on 12.02.2025 in connection with Crime No. 392/2023, registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date:
2026.04.01 18:18:55 +0530 2
2. First bail application filed by the applicant bearing MCRC No. 469 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file after some time vide order dated 29.04.2025. Second bail application filed by the applicant bearing MCRC No. 4848 of 2025 has been rejected vide order dated 20.08.2025 on merit.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the then Branch Manager of Indian Bank Dondekhurd, Raipur lodged the complaint in Police Station Vidhanshab alleging that earlier Branch Manager i.e. the applicant has withdrawn the amount from various accounts maintained by the customers of the bank to the tune of Rs.
1,93,81,637/- till lodging of the FIR on 04.11.2023. It is also case of the prosecution that he has misappropriated total amount of Rs. 2,13,71,637/- out of which he has returned Rs. 19,90,000/- to various accounts maintained by self help groups who are customers of the bank and thus committed offence of embezzlement. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicant has transferred the said amount to his own State Bank account bearing account No. 34649196764 through RTGS/NEFT. On the basis of the complaint, FIR under Section 409 of the IPC was registered against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecution case is far from the truth and they have made false allegation and the amount which has been shown is exaggerated amount and the documents submitted by the bank clearly reflect that they have deliberately concealed the fact and have shown excess amount. He would further submit that the allegation made against the applicant regarding misappropriation of fund of Rs. 2,13,71,637/- is in correct. 3 He would further submit that the applicant has refunded Rs. 1,23,22,796/- to the bank as evident from proposal for reimbursement/compensation/write off to customers on account omission/commission attributable to bank without collusion or connivance on their part dated 28.05.2025 wherein it has been mentioned that recovery of Rs. 1,23,22,796/- whereas total misappropriated amount is Rs. 2,13,71,637/- by the applicant is incorrect factual matrix. He would further submit that along with the applicant other four bank employees are also involved in the commission of offence as reflected from the report submitted before the trial Court, but no FIR has been lodged against them by the Bank. He would further submit that applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025, thus, he remained in jail for more than 1 year and 1 month and only 10 witnesses out of 47 witnesses have been examined and trial may take sometime and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and supported the contentions of the bank and would submit that during investigation it has been found that the applicant has misappropriated the public funds and would pray for rejection of bail application.
6. Mr. Saleem Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Indian Bank would submit that the applicant intimidated the Bank Manager who has to be examined today itself before the trial Court, thus, he would submit that applicant is not only involved in the commission of offence but also intimidating the witnesses, as such, he is not entitled 4 to get bail. He would further submit that the applicant has not fulfilled the undertaking given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as on 17.01.2025 in SLP (Criminal) No. 619/2025 wherein the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that petitioner has also prepared to remit the balance amount and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order that the petitioner is granted four weeks' time to surrender and if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks' from today and applies for regular bail, the concerned Court should consider the same expeditiously and on merits, bearing in mind the statement made by the petitioner's counsel, before this Court, but he has deposited only Rs. 1,23,22,796/- not the total misappropriated amount, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection.
8. Considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025 and more than 1 year and 1 month have already been lapsed and also considering the fact that out of 47 witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined and other 37 witnesses have to be examined which will take sometime and also the applicant has deposited amount of Rs. 1,23,22,796/-, therefore, I am of the view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
9. Accordingly, the third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two local surety as the applicant is originally resident of District Nadia, West Bengal, in the like 5 amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court and he will also submit his passport as the Bank apprehended that after getting bail by this Court, the accused may be absconded, therefore, his passport has also been submitted before the concerned trial Court and will not influence or intimidate any witness to be examined by the prosecution. He shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given by the said trial court, till disposal of the trial and also cooperate with the trial Court.
10. It has been informed that the Bank Manager who has to be examined before the trial Court has been intimated by the applicant's family member. In case if he repeats, the Bank is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant before this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish