1 2025:CGHC:22176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 753 of 2025 Abhay Pratap Singh S/o Hargovind Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o K-101/5, Jindal Road, Vrindavan Colony, Bhagwanpur, Police Station- Kotra Road, District- Raigarh (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhupdeopur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State For Objector Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 20.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.48/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhupdeopur, 2 District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant Amit Johri (Assistant Manager of J.S.W. Steel Pvt Ltd Co.) lodged report before the concerned Police Station stating therein that present applicant alongwith other co-accused persons (employees of the Company) have prepared forged documents regarding entry of vehicle bearing registration No.CG-12-BG-9175 and thereby committed loss to the tune of Rs.21,41,024/- to the Company. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Present applicant was working in the alleged Company upto the month of April 2024 and, thereafter, he was working another place, hence, he is not involved in any manner in the alleged crime/offence. FIR has been lodged against the applicant only on the basis of suspicion. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant and submits two co-accused persons have been arrested in this case and there is specific allegation against the applicant of committing the 3 alleged offence/crime, hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that present applicant was employee of the Company, he alongwith other employees of the Company (co-accused persons) have prepared the forged documents regarding entry of vehicle bearing registration No.CG- 12-BG-9175 and thereby committed loss to the tune of Rs.21,41,024/- to the Company, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice J.