1 2025:CGHC:20721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 653 of 2025 Raja Ram Tarak S/o Khorbahara Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Tamasiwni, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 06 / 05 /20 25 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.408/2024, registered at Police Station Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 punishable under Section 420, 409 r/w Section 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC). 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Santosh Dewangan, filed a written report at Police Station Rajim, alleging that the applicants/accused, namely Rajaram Tark, Sharad Chandra Sharma, Kamlesh Sahu, Yashwant Kumar Nag, and Arun Dwivedi, committed fraud with various people by promising higher returns from the Trade Expo Company and collected approximately Rs.4,83,30,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty- Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). The accused allegedly did not return the money and instead committed fraud with dishonest intentions. Based on the complainant's written report, Police Station Rajim registered Crime No. 408/2024 under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and initiated an investigation. During the investigation, the memorandum statements of the co- accused were recorded, and upon finding evidence of the offense, they were arrested. Subsequently, Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code were added to the case. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused and the applicants/accused under Sections 420, 409, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that three of the identically situated co-accused persons, 3 namely, Yashwant Kumar Nag, Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, Sharadchand Sharma, Abhishek Singh Gaharwar and Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025, 11.04.2025, 16.04.2025 and 22.04.2025 in MCRC No.94/2025, MCRC No.299/2025, MCRC No2858/2025, MCRC No.2920/2025 and MCRC No.3062/2025 copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/3, A/4, A/5 & A/6 . He also submits that neither the company, nor the Youtube channel has been created by the applicant, further no bank account connected with the company has been opened by the applicant. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons are alleged to have committed fraud with various people by promising higher returns from the Trade Expo Company and collected approximately Rs.4,83,30,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty-Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) and later on refused to return the money and instead committed fraud with dishonest intentions, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the applicant that he alongwith other co-accused persons are alleged to have committed fraud with various people by promising higher returns from the Trade Expo Company and collected approximately Rs.4,83,30,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty- Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) and later on refused to return the money and instead committed fraud with dishonest intentions, so far as co-accused persons are concerned, co-accused persons, namely, Yashwant Kumar Nag, Kamlesh Kumar Sahu, Sharadchand Sharma, Abhishek Singh Gaharwar and Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma have been granted regular bail not anticipatory bail, whereas, present applicant has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Raja Ram Tarak, involved in Crime No.408/2024, registered at Police Station Rajim District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 409 r/w Section 120-B and 34 of the IPC is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan