1 2025:CGHC:12676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 361 of 2025 Yogesh Sahu S/o Premlal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Shitla Para Ward No. 11 Arang Police Station And Tahsil Arang District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Tikarapara Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Tulendra Sahu S/o Late Abhayram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Parthivi Nagar In Front Of Chhattisgarh School Tatibandh P.S. Aamanaka City District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondents For Applicant : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 17/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.574/2024, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.19 11:23:54 +0530 2 District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the allegation is that one Dilip Kumar Verma, the brother-in-law of the present applicant, received an amount of ₹6,08,000/- from the complainant on the assurance of securing government employment for the complainant's daughter-in-law, Sarita Sahu, as a stenographer in the Collector's office, his son, Tanishq Sahu, as a sub-inspector in the Transport Department, and his nephew, Rajesh Sahu, as a peon in the Sales Tax Office. However, when neither the promised jobs were secured nor the money was returned, the complainant submitted a written complaint. Upon inquiry an FIR was lodged against three individuals, including the present applicant and co- accused Rudra Kumar Sen, under the relevant legal provisions. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence as he neither promised employment nor received any money from anyone. He would submit that the allegations primarily concern the co-accused Dilip Kumar Verma and Rudra Kumar Sen. He would submit that he had no knowledge of alleged financial transaction and was not a beneficiary and mere use of his mobile phone by a co-accused does not establish criminal liability. He would further submit that the applicant has no previous criminal record. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and he would submit that anticipatory bail application of the two co-accused have been rejected in MCRCA No.938/2024 vide order dated 21/08/2024 and MCRCA No.1233/2024 vide order dated 23/10/2024. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation and also considering the fact that anticipatory bail application of two co- accused persons have been rejected in MCRCA No.938/2024 vide order dated 21/08/2024 and MCRCA No.1233/2024 vide order dated 23/10/2024, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Yogesh Sahu, involved in Crime No.574/2024, registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is rejected. Sd/-Sd S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri