Order on Board

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 88/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District - Rajanandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Rajesh Lunia approached ICICI Bank, Branch Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon, to obtain a gold loan. The bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 48,09,984/-, against which Rajesh Lunia pledged 1404.45 grams of gold ornaments in four instalments on 27.04.2022, 27.04.2022, 28.04.2022, and 28.06.2022. The prosecution alleges that the complainant appointed Rajendra Deokar, the applicant in the present case, to verify the authenticity of the gold, and after physically examining the same, he reported that the gold was genuine. It is further alleged that when Rajesh Lunia later approached the Anjora Branch of the bank to obtain another gold loan, it was discovered that the gold proposed to be pledged was fake. Upon re- inspection, it was also found that the 1404.45 grams of gold ornaments submitted earlier at the Ganj Chowk Branch were likewise fake.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant in the present case has no acquaintance with the co-accused, Rajesh Lunia, and the prosecution has failed to prove, by any documentary evidence, that any criminal conspiracy existed between them. He submits that the complainant himself has stated that on the day of valuation of the gold ornaments, some other person was supposed to verify the authenticity of the gold, however, as that person was not available, the applicant was appointed at short notice to conduct the verification process. Thus, it was a mere coincidence that the applicant was present on that day to conduct the valuation. He also submits that there is a difference in the weight of the gold ornaments recorded during valuation and at the time of seizure, to the extent of 6 grams, which implies that the gold ornaments valued by the present applicant might have been tampered with while in the custody of the bank. He furthers submits that there has been a delay of 1 year and 6 months in the filing of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the complaint made by the complainant. He submits that the present applicant had been working as a valuer for the bank for more than 6 months at the time of the incident, and until then, no complaints had been made against him, the ofÏcials were satisfied with the work carried out by him. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 18.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant, a bank-approved gold valuer, in connivance with co-accused Rajesh Lunia, fraudulently facilitated sanction of gold loans by falsely certifying fake gold ornaments as genuine. He also submits that subsequent verification revealed that ornaments weighing 1405.45 grams pledged under four loan accounts were entirely fake, on the basis of which an amount of Rs. 48,09,984/- was disbursed, causing substantial loss to the bank. Considering the applicant’s active role in the conspiracy, the gravity of the offence, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence, hence, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the prima facie involvement of the applicant in