Bail denied to prime mover of systematic financial fraud; parity inapplicable due to distinct, primary role.

The applicant, a former Branch Manager at Axis Bank, Dongargarh, filed a first bail application following his arrest on August 3, 2025, for alleged financial fraud

Between November 2022 and April 2025, the applicant allegedly embezzled approximately ₹1,06,86,528 from various bank customers by sanctioning fake loans, creating unauthorized net-banking IDs/passwords, and withdrawing funds through cheques or overdrafts against fixed deposits

The prosecution alleges the total fraud amount reached ₹5,12,53,480, with funds being routed to the accounts of the applicant's wife and mother

The applicant argued for parity as his co-accused wife had been granted bail, contended there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and claimed he acted only after due verification by other bank officials

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the economic offense and his specific role in the transaction

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the applicant following the grant of bail to the co-accused wife

The court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantive charges were examined under Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust by banker/public servant), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court relied on the principle that in large-scale financial frauds involving public money, the gravity of the offense and the specific role of the "prime mover" distinguish the main accused from co-accused parties for the purpose of parity

The court analyzed the Investigating Officer's affidavit, which detailed a systematic and well-planned modus operandi where the applicant, leveraging his position as a bank employee, personally executed unauthorized transactions and created a deliberate money trail to family members

The court rejected the plea of parity, reasoning that while the co-accused wife was granted bail, the applicant was the "central and active" participant and the "prime mover" of the entire fraudulent scheme

The court noted that the applicant's role was of a "much higher degree" and involved a significant magnitude of public money (over ₹5.12 crores), which outweighed the considerations of the duration of his pretrial detention or the filing of the charge-sheet

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the bail application

The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously