1 2025:CGHC:12084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 345 of 2025 Ram Narayan Sahu S/o Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years Bl 502, Shivnath Rail Vihar, Wrs Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Mohan Nagar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 23/2025 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.11 17:10:32 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that the salary of the complainant and other workers were embezzled by the accused by conspiracy and after obtaining information from the ofÏce under Right to Information, it was found that all the accused have conspired in a well-planned manner by creating a fake loan statement in the relevant documents and by making fake signatures of the complainant and other co-workers and the forged documents were used as genuine in Railway department. It was further alleged that, forged documents were prepared after taking advance amount of Rs. 26,23,776/- from July 2018 to May 2019. A complaint of the said conspiracy was made before the Regional Labor Commissioner (K) Raipur and the Learned Labor Commissioner ordered payment of Rs. 52,47,552/-, which has not been paid by the accused. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegations against applicant is incorrect. The present applicant/accused is a Central Government employee and is accused of the alleged offence while discharging his ofÏcial duty and as per section 218 (1)(a) of BNSS 2023, a prior sanction of Central Government is required before taking cognizance of such offence. Further, the present applicant has not committed any cheating or any illegal act by illegal means hatching any conspiracy with the co-accused. Therefore, ingredient of Section 420 read with 34 of IPC is not attracted against the present applicant. The prosecution case is false and concocted. The above-named applicant is innocent and has not committed any 3 offence as alleged in the prosecution case. And he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The offence mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) pertains to a purely civil dispute between the complainants and their employer. The role of the present applicant in this matter was limited to the verification of the bill, and there is no criminal liability on his part. The responsibility for the payment of the bill lies solely with the contractor, as per the contractual agreement, and any failure to do so constitutes a civil matter, not a criminal one. Further, the offence in question clearly pertains to a civil nature, as it involves a dispute that arises from contractual obligations and payment of wages, which clearly a civil law. The complainants have, however, attempted to cloak this civil dispute under the guise of a criminal offense, thereby misusing the legal process to harass and abuse the present applicant. Lastly, one of the co-accused in the present case has already been granted bail in the corresponding Crime No. 23/2025 in MCRCA No. 268/2025, where this Court, after reviewing the facts, held that the case is purely of a civil nature and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. In view of the Doctrine of Parity applicant deserves to be extended benefit of anticipatory bail also in the event of his arrest. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accsued. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and further the fact that co-accused persons Shyo Prasad Meena has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 268/2025 vide order dated 24.02.2025 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ram Narayan Sahu, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) They should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy 5 of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) They should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet