1 2025:CGHC:55189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1748 of 2025 Bhagiram @ Bhagirathi S/o Shri Nanhuram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Vill- Raveli Dilwa Para, P.S. Pipariya Dist- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. P.S. Bodla, Dist- Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 155/2024 registered at Police Station – Bodla District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief is that the complainant Rupesh Jaiswal lodged a written complaint stating that his father and the present applicant were friends and shared good relations. The applicant informed the complainant’s father that he knew a person who could VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.13 11:58:24 +0530 2 arrange a job of Peon in the Forest Department for the complainant. On this assurance, the complainant’s father requested the applicant to arrange jobs for the complainant and his nephew, Krishna Kumar. It is further alleged that the applicant introduced the complainant and his family members to co-accused Harishankar Gajbhiye, who claimed to be a cousin of a Superintendent of Police posted in Chhattisgarh. Relying on their assurances, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs. 5,97,500/- to the bank account of co-accused Harishankar Gajbhiye between 26.09.2023 to 09.10.2023 through mobile transactions. Thereafter, Harishankar Gajbhiye introduced the complainant to another co-accused, Domar Chandel, who collected necessary documents such as mark sheet, income certificate, domicile, and caste certificate, and also took Rs.5,00,000/- in cash, assuring that appointment orders would be issued before 13.03.2024. Additionally, Rs.1,64,500/- was received through mobile transaction. In total, the co-accused persons allegedly received Rs.12,62,000/- from the complainant but failed to arrange the promised job. When the complainant demanded his money back, they refused to return it. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the present applicant for help, but he also did not take any steps to resolve the issue. Consequently, the complainant lodged a written complaint on 05.04.2024, based on which Crime No. 155/2024 was registered at Police Station Bodla for offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and the other co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has not received 3 any amount from the complainant or any other person, nor has he ever given any assurance regarding arranging a job for anyone. It is the main accused, namely Harishankar Gajbhiye and Domar Chandel, who had assured the complainant and others about providing government jobs. The applicant is a poor farmer having two sons, both of whom run small private shops, and he is not in a position to arrange jobs for anyone. The father of the complainant is a moneylender, and there existed loan transactions between him and the co-accused Harishankar Gajbhiye and Domar Chandel, which have been given a criminal colour to recover money. The instant complaint has been concocted with a false story, and there is inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution. There is no allegation or document showing that the applicant has received any money, and the complaint has been filed on vague and baseless grounds without any involvement of the applicant. The entire dispute, on its face, is civil in nature relating to recovery of money. The applicant is ready to abide by all directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main allegations regarding the receipt of money are against co- accused Harishankar Gajbhiye and Domar Chandel, and there is no 4 direct evidence to show that the present applicant received any amount or was actively involved in the alleged offence. The role of the present applicant appears to be limited only to the introduction. Therefore, without commenting further on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant, as his case is distinguishable from that of the other co-accused persons. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Bhagiram @ Bhagirathi, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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 Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav