Anticipatory bail is denied where serious misappropriation allegations exist and investigation remains ongoing.

The applicant, Sagir Ahmad, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 142/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, while working as a Credit Verification Officer/Service Provider at IndusInd Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Ambikapur, between 10 March 2024 and 6 January 2025, the applicant collected cash from various two-wheeler loan account holders without issuing valid receipts and misappropriated approximately ₹7,50,390.

The applicant denied being an employee or official of the bank, denied collecting any money, alleged that the FIR registered on 13 March 2026 was delayed and an afterthought, and relied on the absence of criminal antecedents and the anticipated delay in trial.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting that the applicant had received loan repayments which he failed to deposit with the bank.

The investigation was still in progress.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged role in receiving and retaining bank-customer funds, and the pendency of investigation, anticipatory bail ought to be granted.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged offences were Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating and criminal breach of trust in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution.

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the accusations, the material in the case diary, the applicant’s alleged involvement, and the stage of investigation.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s submissions regarding his alleged non-employment by the bank, the delay in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal antecedents, and likely delay in trial.

However, on examination of the case diary and the prosecution material, the Court found that the allegations specifically attributed to the applicant involved receiving amounts from several loan account holders while functioning as a Credit Verification Officer and failing to deposit those amounts with the bank.

Given the nature of the alleged financial misconduct, the applicant’s asserted direct involvement, and the fact that the investigation remained incomplete, the Court considered that custodial protection at the anticipatory-bail stage was not warranted.

The Court declined to comment on the merits of the prosecution case while rejecting the application.

The anticipatory bail application in connection with Crime No. 142/2026, registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, was rejected.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information.