1 2025:CGHC:15452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 452 of 2025 • Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Shiv Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Genjii P.S. Lalpur District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Ps - Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate For Non- applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/04/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 70/2012, registered at Police Station – Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. As per the prosecution story, complainant has filed a written complaint against the applicant and other co-accused under 2 Section 392 of IPC under Crime No. 70 of 2012 of Police Station – Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) and the matter has been taken into investigation and found that on 20.03.2012, applicant along with other accused persons were blocking the way of complainant Pawan Kumar, assaulted him and looted his cash of Rs.2,000/- and one Micromax mobile. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has been implicated in the present case, only on the basis of co-accused memorandum statement. He further submits that on the date of incident the applicant was not present in the State and he was not aware of this matter and other co-accused have been acquitted by the Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2015. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant has been absconding since the incident. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary and also considering the fact that the applicant has been absconding since the date of the incident when the FIR was registered, the trial of the co-accused persons 3 were separated from the present applicant and they were acquitted, the applicant has given an explanation for non- appearance before the trial Court, but the same is not a plausible one, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Rajesh Jaiswal filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No. 70/2012, registered at Police Station–Lormi, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.04 11:40:23 +0530