1 2025:CGHC:32065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1007 of 2025 Kanchan Vishwakarma S/o Manoj Vishwakarma, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tamgekala Post Tamgekala, Tahsil Ranka, Police Station Ranka District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Dhaurpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10 / 07 /20 25 1. 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.81/2024, registered at Police Station Dhaurpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(3), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (In short, BNS). RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Dhaniram, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Dhaurpur stating that a loan of ₹72,000/- had been sanctioned in the name of his wife by Spandana Sfurti Private Limited, Branch Shankargarh. The installments of the said loan were being paid on time. However, for their personal benefit, the Branch Manager of the company, Suresh Kumar, along with another employee, Sanjay Kumar Sahu, allegedly issued a fake death certificate in the name of the complainant and fraudulently withdrew ₹18,000/- from his wife’s account. Based on the said report, a crime was registered against the co-accused, and the name of the present applicant surfaced in the matter on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime. He further submits that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant as alleged in the FIR, and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR was lodged only against the co-accused Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sahu, and the name of the applicant was not mentioned therein. Despite this, the police have deliberately involved the applicant in the present case. He further submits that bail applications of the co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Sahu and Suresh Kumar Sahu have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2024 3 and 11.12.2024 in MCRC Nos. 7792/2024 and 8424/2024, respectively, copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the present applicant, in connivance with co-accused Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sahu, was involved in the preparation and use of a forged death certificate in the name of the complainant, with the intent to commit fraud. By using the forged document, the accused persons dishonestly withdrew ₹18,000/- from the loan account of the complainant’s wife, thereby committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. The involvement of the present applicant is revealed during the investigation and from the memorandum of the co- accused, which suggests a conspiracy to commit the offence for personal financial gain, 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 applicant that the present applicant, in connivance with co-accused Suresh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sahu, was involved in the preparation and use of a forged death certificate in the name of the complainant, with the intent to commit fraud, by using the forged document, the accused persons dishonestly withdrew ₹18,000/- from the loan account of the complainant’s wife, thereby committing 4 criminal breach of trust and cheating. Further the involvement of the present applicant is revealed during the investigation and from the memorandum of the co-accused, which suggests a conspiracy to commit the offence for personal financial gain, so far as co-accused persons are concerned, co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Sahu and Suresh Kumar Sahu have been granted regular bail not anticipatory bail, whereas, present applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Kanchan Vishwakarma, involved in Crime No.81/2024, registered at Police Station Dhaurpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(3), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan