1 2025:CGHC:53349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1673 of 2025 1 - S. Rajasekar @ S.R. Devar, S/o Late Subbiah Aged About 70 Years R/o No. 55/3, Vellaiyan Street, Kalanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Tamilnadu 639001 ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Supela Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 31/10/2025 1. The present application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in 2 connection with Crime No.908/2019 registered at Police Station- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Narsingh Bhutada lodged a written report at Police Station- Supela stating that another co-accused S.R. Thevar in collusion with his two associates Perumal Raj, Chandan and the present applicant in the name of providing loan of Rs. 200 crore within 3 months at the rate of 5% annual interest, had defrauded the complainant for large scale agriculture and business in a planned manner and thereby committed the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no active role in the said offence. He next added that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. He lastly submits that the applicant is a 70 years old aged person and in similar set of facts, another co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2020 passed in MCRC No. 1606 of 2020 therefore, he may also be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the present applicant is the main accused in the case. Despite issuance of notice, he has not appeared and cooperated with the investigation. He further submits that several other previous antecedents have been 3 registered against the applicant and he is a habitual offender, therefore, the anticipatory bail application may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, quality of evidence against the applicant and further considering the fact that other co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court, without commenting anything on merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer or the Court concerned, as the case may be, with the following terms and conditions: (i) 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; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial; 4 (iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 7. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV