Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicants – Shiv Kumar Chandrakar, Jai Prakash Chandrakar, Chumman Lal, Pramod Gandhi, Smt. Jayshree Deshmukh (all directors of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg). Respondent – State of Chhattisgarh (through the Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Durg and the District Magistrate, Durg).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Two anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from Crime No. 213/2021 registered at Police Station‑City Kotwali, Durg.
  • Alleged Offences: Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, etc.).
  • Prosecution Claims: The directors, together with Chairman Mr. Pritpal Belchandan, allegedly embezzled Rs 1,313.50 lakh (April 8 2014 – May 12 2020) in the name of godown construction and granted waivers under a One‑Time Settlement (OTS) scheme to 186 persons between 08.08.2016 – 12.06.2019, amounting to Rs 175.61 lakh. Total alleged loss: Rs 1,489.11 lakh.
  • Complaint Origin: Complaint by Raviprakash Tamrakar (Vrahattakar Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nankatthi, Durg) to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, leading to an enquiry by a three‑member team (including the Upper Collector, Durg). The enquiry report dated 03.02.2021 formed the basis for the written complaint and subsequent FIR.
  • Defence Submissions: Applicants argued lack of prior hearing (violation of Section 58(B) of the Chhattisgarh Co‑operative Societies Act), that they were added only in a supplementary charge‑sheet, and that internal investigations found no financial irregularities. They claimed decisions on godowns and OTS were collective Board actions, compliant with RBI and Cooperative Department guidelines, and that they derived no personal benefit. They also cited Supreme Court rulings (Naman Singh vs State of UP, 2019) asserting that FIRs cannot be issued on a Collector’s direction.
  • Additional Allegations Noted by Court: Pilferage of public funds through purchase of a laptop for Rs 7.25 lakh at inflated price, alleged illegal relaxation of Rs 6.74 lakh, Rs 42.06 lakh, and Rs 105.24 lakh for OTS beneficiaries, and that the bank’s licence permits banking activities only, not non‑banking construction.
  • Other Relevant Points: Regular bail was previously granted to Chairman Pritpal Belchandan on 27.09.2033 (MCRC No. 5668/2023). Applicants are senior (age >60) permanent residents, argued no flight risk.
  • Court’s Legal Reasoning: Cited Supreme Court judgments (Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah vs Kamal Dayani, 2025; P. Chidambaram v DE, 2019) emphasizing circumspect exercise of anticipatory bail. Recognised the gravity of alleged public‑money pilferage and the need to balance individual rights with public interest.

Final Outcome

  • The Court rejected both anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • The judgment is limited to the bail applications and will not influence the substantive trial, which will proceed on its merits.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Cooperative Bank Fraud