1 2025:CGHC:16917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 506 of 2025 • Durgesh Kumar Chandra S/o Tribhuneshwar Chandra Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khairakala, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dabhra, Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Tawadkar, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. 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. 21/2025 registered at Police Station – Dabhra, VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 11:44:35 +0530 2 District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Dileshwar Bareth made a complaint before the concern police station alleging that Durgesh Kumar Chandra posted as Constable (CAF) 4th Battalion at Mana Camp Raipur they talked about providing jobs on the post of Hostel Superintendent and took Rs. 4,00,000/- at Home on 12.09.2024 and on 19.09.2024 took 5,000/- on Google-pay & Rs. 50,000/- cash from complainant. He has stated that these people did not provided job and deliberately cheated him by taking a total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the name of providing a job. Also alleged that Duergesh Kumar Chandra took Rs. 2,90,000/- from Bhopla Patel, 4,50,000/- from Rajkumar Chandra for providing jobs. Hence, these application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that complainant himself has sworn an affidavit that he gave money to one Prashant Pandey for giving employment and, the present applicant was only an witness in the said agreement. However, the present FIR has been lodged only against the present applicant and said Prashant Pandey, who has obtained money, has not been made an accused. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail 3 application and submits that the bail application of the present applicant deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the complainant had lodged FIR against the applicant that he in connivance with others had obtained money for providing employment to him and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, this first bail application of applicant –Durgesh Kumar Chandra involved in Crime No. 21/2025 registered at Police Station – Dabhra, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, is rejected at this stage. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali