1 2025:CGHC:20282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 634 of 2025 Anurag Shrivastav S/o Shiv Kumar Shrivastav Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Sadhu, Police Station Vidhansabha Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 02/05/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suruksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.15/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Smt. Praveen Agrawal filed a complaint alleging therein that an agreement was executed on 13.12.2024 to purchase a land situated at Mandir Hasaud which was in the name of Shri Pushpa Sarathi. On 20.12.2024, when the parties reached to registrar offeice and it was agreed that the sale deed was to be registered in two parts in the joint names of the complainant and Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal. Co-accused (Smt. Devteen Verma) posing as Rajaram Sarathi’s wife signed as the seller, and a total of Rs.2.17 crores was paid via cheques in the name of Pushpa Sarthi @ Devteen Verma. Later on 09.01.2025, it was discovered by the complainant that he has been defrauded by Devteen Verma. It has been further alleged that the fraudulent transaction was allegedly arranged by Murli Gajwani and Vikram Singh Patel, who admitted the same. It was further alleged that Ruknuddin Khan and applicant also conspired in preparing forged documents. Based on the complainant, a case has been registered against the applicant and co-accused as aforementioned. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicate in the present case. She further submits that two of the identically situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court co-accused, namely, Vikram Singh Patel has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRCA No.384 of 2025 and co-accused, Satish Sinha has been granted regular bail by this 3 Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in MCRC No.3083 of 2025. Hence she prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant is alleged to have conspired in preparing forged documents for the said sale deed and had accompanied other co-accused persons. He also submits that applicant is one of the beneficiary of the said sale deed as he has received Rs.33,00,000/- in his account, applicant is also declared as an absconder, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant that he conspired in preparing forged documents for the said sale deed and had accompanied other co- accused persons, though two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court co-accused, namely, Vikram Singh Patel has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRCA No.384 of 2025 and co- accused, Satish Sinha has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in MCRC No.3083 of 2025, but the case of present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co- accused persons since no allegations have been made against 4 them regarding receiving of amount in the account, where as present applicant received Rs.33,00,000/- in his account and on a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicant regarding the said amount, she is failed to provide a plausible explanation, also considering the fact that the applicant has been declared as an absconding and has now come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, further charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in {(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 - Anurag Shrivastav, filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. involved in Crime No.15/2025, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil