1 2025:CGHC:53925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1608 of 2025  Mitthu Kumar S/o Karu Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Karam, Post- Diri, District- Nawada, Bihar, Pin- 805112 (Particulars Of The Applicant Are Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr.Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 4.11.2025 Heard. 1) The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 355/2023 registered at Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) for Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.04 18:04:25 +0530 2 the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Police has filed charge-sheet on 16.5.2025. 2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant, namely, Jagdish Prasad Singhania lodged a written complaint to the effect that he is indulged in business of transportation and was in constant need of trucks. One of the co-accused Rajesh Yadu, a broker was engaged by him to deliver second hand trucks. The complainant purchased 12 trucks from Rajesh Yadu between 30.4.2022 till 30.9.2022. Later on, seven trucks were seized by Khamtarai Police and five trucks were seized by Bihar Police. On such report being lodged, police registered offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC against Rajesh Yadu and others. The name of present applicant surfaced in the charge- sheet filed on 16.5.2025 wherein he has been shown absconding. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one truck was sold by the present applicant to the complainant and agreements entered into between the original owner and purchaser/ complainant are part of charge-sheet. He further submits that there is no allegation to the effect that Vehicle Registration Plate and/or Chasis Number of the truck sold by the applicant was forged but only on the basis of memorandum statement of main accused Rajesh Yadu, applicant has been implicated. He contends that applicant was not aware of registration of any other criminal case but it is informed that on the basis of memorandum 3 statement of Rajesh Yadu, Crime No. 124/2023 was registered against present applicant. He further contends applicant was never communicated by the police regarding registration of Crime No. 355/2023 or Crime No. 124/2023 against him and in the entire charge-sheet, involvement of applicant is not visible, therefore application for the grant of anticipatory bail may be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the main accused Rajesh Yadu has categorically stated in his memorandum statement that present applicant was involved in sale of 12 trucks to the complainant. He further submits that a similar offence was registered against the applicant in year 2023. He contends that applicant has remained absconding for considerable period and after filing of charge-sheet, he filed this bail application and same deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) From the perusal of the case diary, it appears that FIR was registered by Jagdish Prasad Singhania on 19.4.2023 against Rajesh Yadu and others. In that FIR, name of the present applicant has not been disclosed. For the first time, name of the applicant surfaced in the charge-sheet filed on 16.5.2025. With regard to registration of Crime No. 124/2023, in that case, Rajesh Yadu is main accused and applicant was never communicated by 4 the police with regard to registration of Crime No. 355/2023 or Crime No. 124/2023 prior to filing of charge-sheet. 7) In the entire charge-sheet, except memorandum statement of Rajesh Yadu, there is no material to connect the present applicant with the commission of offence. Further, the truck which was sold by the applicant has not been found to be forged or stolen property. As the name of applicant was not reflected in the FIR, therefore there was no occasion for him to move application for grant of anticipatory bail prior to 16.5.2025 i.e. date on which charge-sheet was filed. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I am inclined to allow the present anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. 9) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, on following conditions :- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the 5 Court; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. D/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a