Parity and lack of criminal antecedents warrant anticipatory bail in financial fraud involving limited participation.

The applicant, a Special Assistant at Punjab National Bank (PNB), Raigarh, is accused of participating in a financial fraud involving the misappropriation of a retired government employee’s GPF investment of Rs. 5,00,000

It is alleged that in 2020, the applicant advised the complainant to invest in a PNB Metlife policy and introduced him to co-accused Nikesh Kumar Pandey

The complainant issued a cheque for the policy, but in 2025, he discovered the policy bond was fake and the funds had been deposited into Pandey’s personal bank account

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The applicant moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS given the allegations of financial fraud and forgery

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC

The Court also implicitly considered the principle of parity, noting that the main co-accused had been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 8901/2025

The Court evaluated the nature of the allegations and the specific role of the applicant, noting that the primary accusations were directed at co-accused Nikesh Pandey, who allegedly diverted the funds to his own account

The Court observed that the applicant’s involvement was limited to introducing the complainant to the co-accused

It further emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident, minimizing any risk of absconding

The Court reasoned that since the investigation and trial would likely be prolonged and the main accused was already on bail, the applicant’s custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety

This relief was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not influence witnesses, must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates, must submit Aadhaar verification, and must not involve himself in similar offences in the future