[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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. 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2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file after some time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applicant has withdrawn the amount from various accounts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.
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
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
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
