1 2025:CGHC:54391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1686 of 2025 • Pankaj Agrawal S/o Lakhichandra Agrawal Aged About 42 Years Occupation Business, R/o Maridian Tower, Flat No. 501, 5th Floor, Rourkela, Distt. Sundargarh, Odisha. ... Applicant versus • The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivatava, Government Advocate For Objector : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 07/11/2025 1. This first 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 Complaint Case No.787/2022 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) for offence under Sections 386 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, the complainant Rahul Goyal had filed a criminal complaint on 10.10.2022 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the threat given to him on 08.08.2022 VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.11.07 17:59:39 +0530 2 in Raipur to make immediate payment of Rs.5 Crore and on 23.07.2022 through mobile that if the complainant wants to do business in Odhisha, he will have to pay Lakhs of rupees to the applicant. In this regard complainant had filed a written complaint on 24.07.2022 at police station Ambikapur. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that incident took place on 08.08.2022 at Baron Bazar, Raipur, but no information was given to any police station of Raipur. It is further submitted that there is no record of what conversation took place between the complainant and present applicant through phone call, hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of dispute, the material available on record and the fact that there is no record of what conversation took place between the complainant and present applicant through phone call, thus, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant - Pankaj Agrawal is allowed. It is, therefore, directed that if the applicant 3 furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No.787/2022, she be released on bail. Order shall be in force till disposal of the case. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali