1 2025:CGHC:44992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1289 of 2025 Pankaj Sharma S/o Shri Pyarelal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years By Occupation Bank Employee, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .. Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03/09/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 113/2025 registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the allegation against the applicant, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 that he had facilitated the other accused person to open an Bank Account. As per direction and order of the Central Govt. dated 18/3/2025, which was received by Cyber Cell, that an action, are to taken against the mule account Holder and on that an investigation was conducted and it was found that in Axis Bank Dongargarh from 28/12/23 to 7/10/24 a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited in different account. On memorandum statement of co-accused, it was found that applicant was also involved in the crime. Hence an offence under aforesaid section have been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 5170/2025 and MCRC No. 5507/2025 vide order dated 23.07.2025. He further submits that there is no prima facie evidence available that the applicant involved in the aforesaid case. He further submits that there is huge delay in lodging the FIR and no proper explanation had been offered by the complainant and not a single penny had been received by the applicant from the other accused person, nor any amount was deposited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is neither an employee of the Axis Bank nor his account is there in the Axis Bank, and only on the basis of memorandum, the applicant has been made an accused. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for 3 grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submitted that the applicant is an employee of IndusInd Bank, working as a Business Development Manager. It was further submitted that a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, showing him as an absconder. Moreover, the offence relates to an online fraud and the co- accused, who were granted bail by this Court, were granted regular bail, not anticipatory bail. It was also submitted that apart from the present case, another case has been registered against the applicant for a similar offence, for which an MCRCA has been filed and is connected with the present case. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant is an employee of IndusInd Bank, working as a Business Development Manager and a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder and moreover, the offence relates to an online fraud and the co-accused, who was granted bail by this Court, was granted regular bail, not anticipatory bail and apart from the present case, another case has been registered against the applicant for a similar offence, for which an MCRCA has been filed and is connected with the present case thus, 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. 4 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 – Pankaj Sharma, filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. involved in Crime No. 113/2025 registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, 3(5) of BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal