1 2025:CGHC:32691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1029 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Ramteke S/o Santram Ramteke, Aged About 35 Years R/o Arajkund, Police Station - Ambagadh Chowki, District - Manpur-Mohla- Ambagadh Chowki (Incompletely Mentioned As Chowki) (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sihawa, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14/07/2025 1 This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.39/2025, registered at Police Station – Sihawa, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.15 18:00:04 +0530 2 2 The prosecution case in brief, is that, the complainant alleged that the applicant and another co-accused demanded Rs. 95,000/- for his transfer. The complainant initially sent Rs. 4,000/- to the co-accused Tilak Yadav's account, followed by ₹1,000 and ₹50,000 via phone pay. The co-accused Tilak Yadav then informed the complainant that the transfer order had been issued and took an additional ₹30,000 and ₹10,000. However, when the complainant received the transfer order, it was found to be forged. Later, the applicant, co-accused, and the complainant's brother were arrested in another case. After their release from jail, the applicant and co-accused demanded ₹5,50,000 from the complainant to settle the matter related to Crime No. 56/2023. When the complainant refused, the applicant and co-accused threatened that he would not get his ₹95,000 back. The complainant eventually gave them ₹5,50,000, but after six months, when the applicant and co-accused were released from jail again, they failed to return the amount. They also promised to appoint the complainant's son in the health department but provided a forged appointment order. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case because the brother of the complainant, namely, Bhupendra Chanakaya, applicant and co-accused namely Tilak Yadav and 1 more person namely Deepak Nayar has been arrested in Crime No. 56/2023 for which the complainant has helped the persons arrested in Crime No. 56/2023 in releasing and defending the case through an advocate as well as paying advocate fee for the present applicant and co-accused of this case, thereafter, the accused in Crime No. 56/2023 has been acquitted on ground that complainant has turned hostile as he has lodged report after non-receiving an amount given on credit. Further, as per the allegation of the complainant, the 3 name of the present applicant is at no-where and no transaction has been done with the applicant. It is also admitted by the complainant that at the time of earlier Crime No. 56/2023, the complainant has demanded Rs. 5,50,000/- from the applicant. Further, the applicant has one decided criminal case, in which he has been acquitted. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that from the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant/accused and co-accused, namely, Tilak Yadav defrauded the complainant, namely, Shailendra Chanchal Chanakya by preparing forged documents and taking away the money by luring him to transfer the amount and to get a job for his son. Therefore, he is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. 5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the parties and from perusal of the documents available, it appears that the applicant/accused and co-accused, namely, Tilak Yadav defrauded the complainant, namely, Shailendra Chanchal Chanakya by preparing forged documents and taking away the money by luring him to transfer the amount and to get a job for his son, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to reject the anticipatory bail of the present applicant. 7 Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of applicant - Manoj Kumar Ramteke involved in Crime No.39/2025, registered at Police Station – Sihawa, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- ((Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti