1 2025:CGHC:16216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 474 of 2025 Devendra Kumar Thakur, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Late Brijlal Singh Thakur At Makan No. 17/42, Marar Para, Ward No.- 17, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Chowki Kacche, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate appears through VC. For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 07/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. 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.205/2021, registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar) (C.G.) for alleged GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.09 11:31:12 +0530 2 commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the written complaint of Chief Forest Conservator, Kanker Circle, Kanker a FIR, bearing crime No. 205/2021 under section 467, 468, 471 of IPC was registered against one Kaushal Yadav owner of Ganapati Enterprises Raipur, C.G. From perusal of the FIR it is clear that the core allegation was against the prime accused Kaushal Yadav and the applicant was not even named in the FIR. It is apparent that the prime accused has framed forged work order for mining through forged signatures of the erstwhile Forest Circle Officer. Based on such allegation, the prime accused Kaushal Yadav was arrested on 20/01/2025 and was presented before the concerned judicial magistrate which remanded him to judicial custody and thereafter, an application for bail was preferred by the said accused Kaushal Yadav on 22/01/2025 before the trial court which was rejected and from the bail rejection order it is apparent that there was no whisper till that date about the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime. Judicial remand of the accused Kaushal Yadav was extended till 03/02/2025 and thereafter it was further extended to 18/02/2025, 04/03/2025, 07/03/2025 and 10/03/2025. On 10/03/2025 the IO applied for police remand of the prime accused Kaushal Yadav which was allowed by the trial court and for the first time when the accused Kaushal Yadav was taken on police remand his memorandum was recorded and in his 3 memorandum he implicated the present applicant. Hence, this anticipatory bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the applicant has not been named in the FIR lodged way back in year 2021. He would submit that the applicant has not been named by the prime accused Kaushal Yadav during investigation and at the time of first remand and on several further judicial remands, but the applicant has only been implicated when the prime accused was taken into police remand. He would submit that from a bare perusal of the FIR the entire allegation of forgery and using the forged document was against the prime accused and there is no substance against the present applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is of 65 years of age and has retired several years ago. He would submit that the applicant during his service was engaged as Revenue Accountant and was engaged in wood auction process and had nothing to do with the work order or mining. He would submit that the applicant has no previous criminal record and the trial against the applicant is likely to take time, therefore he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, also considering the fact that initially the applicant was not named in the FIR which is of the year 2021 and now in 2025 the applicant's involvement was only revealed during the police remand of prime accused Kaushal Yadav and in the memorandum of accused Kaushal Yadav he has named the present applicant, there is every likelihood that the present applicant might tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses and also considering the fact that investigation is still going on, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Devendra Kumar Thakur, involved in Crime No.205/2021, registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar) C.G. for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC is rejected. Sd/-Sd S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri