Anticipatory bail granted on parity where accused joined after the alleged fraud period.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 188/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 318, 316(5), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons, while posted as employees or authorised officials of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Branch Petla, forged the signatures of 127 farmers, sanctioned loans in their names, and committed fraud and misappropriation amounting to approximately ₹1,92,82,096/-.

The applicant contended that he was appointed as an authorised officer only on 18 November 2024, whereas the alleged fraud extended from 2020 to 2025.

The State opposed the application on the ground that the allegations involved serious financial fraud and that the applicant’s role remained subject to investigation.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 318, 316(5), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court assessed the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s prima facie role, the period during which he held the relevant position, parity with similarly placed co-accused, his age and health, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged fraud and misappropriation but found relevant mitigating circumstances in favour of the applicant.

The alleged fraudulent acts covered the period from 2020 to 2025, while the applicant had been appointed as an authorised officer only on 18 November 2024, thereby limiting the period during which his alleged involvement could arise.

The Court also relied on parity, noting that co-accused Jogiram, who had previously worked as an authorised officer, and Sainath Kerketta had already been granted anticipatory bail.

Considering these circumstances together with the applicant’s age-related ailments and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court concluded that the applicant deserved protection from arrest without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Madan Sai Sidar be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar-card copies and photographs of the applicant and surety; and involvement in any similar offence in the future.