Facts
The applicant, a bank-approved gold valuer, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
Source reference: p. 1, para 1The prosecution alleges that co-accused Rajesh Lunia obtained a gold loan of ₹48,09,984 from ICICI Bank, Rajnandgaon, by pledging 1404.45 grams of gold ornaments
Source reference: p. 1–2, para 2The applicant was appointed by the bank to verify the gold's authenticity and certified the ornaments as genuine
Source reference: p. 2, para 2Subsequent verification at a different branch revealed that the gold ornaments were fake, causing a substantial financial loss to the bank
Source reference: p. 2, para 2The applicant was arrested on 18.01.2026 for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Source reference: p. 1, para 1; p. 3, para 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of criminal conspiracy and the nature of his professional role as a valuer
Source reference: p. 3, para 6Law Applied
Section 420 of the IPC regarding cheating and Section 120(B) of the IPC regarding criminal conspiracy
Source reference: p. 1, para 1Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail
Source reference: p. 1, para 1The gravity of economic offences and the impact of fraudulent certified valuations in banking transactions
Source reference: p. 3, para 6Reasoning
The applicant contended that he had no prior acquaintance with the co-accused, that his appointment for the specific valuation was a coincidence, and that discrepancies in the weight of the seized ornaments suggested tampering while in bank custody
Source reference: p. 2–3, para 3The Court observed that as a bank-approved valuer, the applicant played an active and critical role in the "well-planned conspiracy" by certifying fake gold as genuine
Source reference: p. 3, para 6The Court emphasized the "prima facie involvement" of the applicant in facilitating the fraudulent disbursement of ₹48,09,984
Source reference: p. 3, para 6It found that the serious nature of the allegations, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the applicant’s professional responsibility outweighed his arguments regarding a clean antecedent and the delay in filing the FIR
Source reference: p. 3, para 4–6Holding
The Court rejected the bail application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of bail given the gravity of the offence and his active role as a facilitator in the fraud
The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously
Source reference: p. 4, para 8Original Court PDF
RAJKUMAR DEOKARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in