News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 196 | 2026:CGHC:12098

March 13, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has acquitted a Life Insurance Corporation employee who had been convicted nearly two decades ago in a case involving alleged insurance policy forgery and attempted loan fraud. The court held that the prosecution failed to produce reliable evidence linking the accused to the alleged fabrication of documents and conspiracy.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajani Dubey on March 13, 2026, allowing the criminal appeal filed by Arun Vasant Bapat, an assistant posted at the Bilaspur branch of the Life Insurance Corporation of India during 1994–95. The appeal challenged a 2006 decision of the Special Judge (CBI), Raipur, which had convicted Bapat under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the prosecution case, the accused had allegedly fabricated documents related to three insurance policies in the names of individuals including Anju Pandit and Jagdish Prasad Tiwari. It was claimed that forged policy papers, transfer records and signatures were used to falsely show that the policies had been transferred to the Bilaspur branch in order to obtain loans amounting to ₹1.85 lakh. Although loans were sanctioned by the branch manager, the amounts were reportedly never disbursed.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence to establish the alleged forgery and conspiracy. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s version and sentenced the accused to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine for each offence.

However, while examining the appeal, the High Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. Evidence on record showed that the accused was working merely as an assistant in the LIC office, but no documentary proof was produced to establish the specific role or responsibility assigned to him at the relevant time. The court noted that the prosecution failed to demonstrate how the accused could have independently prepared forged documents or manipulated official records within a system that required multiple stages of verification.

Testimonies of key witnesses also raised doubts about the prosecution’s claims. The then senior branch manager admitted that he had sanctioned a loan of ₹1 lakh despite having the authority to approve loans only up to ₹75,000. Another witness acknowledged signing calculation sheets and payment vouchers related to the disputed policies. The court also noted that several important documents were missing from the records seized during the investigation.

The High Court observed that internal procedures in the LIC involved multiple checks and approvals before processing policy-related transactions. In such a system, it could not be presumed that a single assistant was solely responsible for preparing forged policies or payment documents. The court further noted that the prosecution had relied largely on assumptions rather than concrete proof.

Referring to principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in earlier judgments on forgery and criminal liability, the High Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. Since no direct or reliable evidence connected the accused with the alleged acts of forgery or conspiracy, the conviction could not be sustained.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the 2006 conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges. As the accused was already on bail, the court directed him to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for six months in compliance with the provisions related to possible appeals before the Supreme Court.

The judgment brings closure to a case that began with allegations of insurance policy fraud in the mid-1990s and continued through litigation for nearly three decades.

Case Reference : CRA No. 299 of 2006, Arun Vasant Bapat vs Union of India through CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Jabalpur (M.P.); Counsels: For the Appellant: Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate; For the Respondent: Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate.