1 2025:CGHC:59274 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8131 of 2025 Ratnakar Upadhyay S/o Shirish Chandra Upadhyay Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service R/o B-210 Surya Apartment Uttam Nagar New Delhi. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. S.M. Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Complainant : Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 315(5), 316(4), 356(1), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 346, 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 20.04.2025, a written complaint was submitted at Pathalgaon Police Station alleging that the accused persons Anita Upadhyay, Saurabh Singh, Ratnakar Upadhyay, and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.09 11:07:41 +0530 2 Pranshu Agarwal had entered into a criminal conspiracy and caused financial loss to the complainant by cheating, embezzling, and defrauding him of Rs. 5,29,20,000/- in connection with a tender and sweater supply under the name of Rashtriya Gramin Saksharta Mission (RGSM). According to the prosecution, an institution was formed by the applicant/accused in the name of Rashtriya Gramin Saksharta Mission, in which co-accused Anita Upadhyay was the trustee, Saurabh Singh was the vice-trustee, and Ashish, Kanchan Singh, and Ankit Singh were members, while the present accused did not formally hold any post in it. However, the institution was allegedly operated and controlled solely by the applicant/accused. It is further alleged that the applicant and the co- accused assured the complainant that they would secure the Government of India’s sweater supply work for him and promised good profits. On this pretext, they allegedly took from him a demand draft of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, and a commission amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in cash in the name of obtaining the tender. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that no article has been seized from the possession of the applicant, and solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused, the applicant has been implicated in the present crime. The applicant’s name does not appear in the FIR, wherein allegations regarding the cheque of Rs. 5 crore have been levelled. He further submits that the police have falsely made the applicant an accused merely on the basis of suspicion and the memorandum statement of the co-accused. The applicant was only an employee of the RGSM Company and had resigned from the said company on 16.08.2023. The alleged incident pertains to the period between 20.03.2025 and 25.04.2025. Therefore, after leaving RGSM Company, 3 the applicant had no transaction or connection with the said institution. He also submits that the applicant is a heart patient who has suffered a heart attack and undergone open-heart surgery. He is medically weak, and doctors have advised him to take proper care and bed rest for recovery. The applicant’s brother, Sudhakar, is also suffering from health issues, and his treatment is ongoing. He submits further submits that the co-accused Anita Upadhyay has submitted a complaint against Pranyanshu and Saurabh, who were working in the trust, alleging that they committed forgery and cheating in the distribution of sweaters worth about Rs. 5000 crore without informing her and without her authorization. He submits that the applicant never worked in the trust. During the trial, a money transaction of Rs. 53 lakh has been found transferred from the account of another co-accused Anita Upadhyay to the account of complainant Amit Agrawal. Since both the applicant and co-accused Anita Upadhyay are in judicial custody, it is evident that the said transaction was made only to falsely implicate the applicant. During the period of the alleged incident, the applicant was not posted with the said trust and had no involvement whatsoever in the alleged embezzlement or forgery. He submits that the present applicant has been in jail since 02.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application of the applicant and submit that on 20.04.2025, a complaint was filed at Pathalgaon Police Station alleging that the accused, in conspiracy with others, cheated the complainant of Rs. 5,29,20,000/- under the guise of securing a sweater supply tender through the Rashtriya Gramin Saksharta Mission (RGSM). Though not holding any formal post, the applicant is alleged to have 4 controlled RGSM. By falsely promising Government of India tender work, the accused allegedly obtained from the complainant a demand draft of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, and Rs. 15,00,000/- as commission. They further submit that the present applicant has 22 criminal antecedents out of which 15 cases are of the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as it transpires from the case diary, that on 20.04.2025, a complaint was filed at Pathalgaon Police Station alleging that the accused, in conspiracy with others, cheated the complainant of Rs. 5,29,20,000/- under the guise of securing a sweater supply tender through the Rashtriya Gramin Saksharta Mission (RGSM). Though not holding any formal post, the applicant is alleged to have controlled RGSM. By falsely promising Government of India tender work, the accused allegedly obtained from the complainant a demand draft of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- in cash, and Rs. 15,00,000/- as commission. Moreover, the fact that the applicant has 22 criminal antecedents out of which 15 cases are of the similar nature, shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ratnakar Upadhyay, involved in Crime No. 86/2025 5 registered at Police Station Patthalgaon, District – Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 315(5), 316(4), 356(1), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 340(1), 346, 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek