Order on Board

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.171/2026 registered at Police Station – Kota for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the prosecution case, the complainant, Narendra Singh Mishra, lodged an FIR at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), against the present applicant, Navel Singh Paikra, working as Accountant/Assistant Grade-II, and one co-accused, Devendra Kumar Palke, working as a peon in the Block Education Office, Kota. It is alleged that both, being public servants, in furtherance of their common intention, embezzled government funds by fraudulently withdrawing an ₹ amount of 25,04,422/- during the period from September ₹ 2024 to February 2025 and a further sum of 4,57,800/- from March 2025 to November 2025, thereby causing a total ₹ loss of 29,62,222/- to the State exchequer, purportedly by forging salary records and misusing their official position. On the basis of these allegations, the aforesaid FIR has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), and the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the said crime.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and no role is attributable to him in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the entire act of embezzlement has been admitted by the co-accused Devendra Kumar Palke, who manipulated the records and misled the department. It is further submitted that recovery proceedings have been initiated against the co-accused and substantial amounts have already been recovered. It is also contended that the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, after due enquiry, directed lodging of FIR only against the co-accused, thereby exonerating the present applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court, hence, he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail..

4. On the other hand, Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations pertain to serious embezzlement of government funds by public servants and the role of the present applicant, being posted as Accountant/Assistant Grade-II, cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is submitted that the admission of the co-accused or partial recovery does not absolve the applicant and custodial interrogation may be required for proper investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the State opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the co-accused has admitted the alleged embezzlement, recovery proceedings have already been initiated against him, and the competent authority, after enquiry, has directed lodging of FIR only against the co- accused, this Court is of the view that, prima facie, no specific role is attributable to the present applicant at this stage. The applicant is a government servant with no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Navel Singh Paikra, on