1 2025:CGHC:60418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1876 of 2025 Pushpendra Shukla S/o Devendra Shukla Aged About 24 Years R/o Vill- Sambalpur, Tah. And P.S- Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, P.S.- Bodhghat, Dist.- Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 11.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 249/2025, registered at Police Station – Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the police lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant at Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, stating that she is acquainted with the present applicant and that he used to visit her house from time to time, therefore, her family members also know him well. She further alleged that on ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.12 16:56:01 +0530 2 03.05.2025, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) was deposited in her account, and she asked the applicant to withdraw the said amount. Accordingly, the present applicant withdrew a total amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- from her account through ATM, cheque, and UPI. It is alleged that the applicant gave her only Rs. 70,000/-, and for the remaining amount of Rs. 4,40,000/-, he refused to pay, stating that he had spent the said amount and that the complainant was free to take any action against him. Acting upon the aforesaid written complaint, the police registered an F.I.R. on 29.01.2025 against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that as per the allegations mentioned in the written complaint, the complainant herself had given her ATM card, cheque, and UPI details to the applicant, and he withdrew the amount strictly as per her instructions. The complainant was fully aware of these transactions, as under the present banking system, an account holder receives SMS alerts from the bank on every transaction. However, she has not explained in her complaint why she did not take any immediate action against the applicant if she believed any wrongdoing had occurred. He also submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 29.05.2025, whereas the alleged withdrawals were made much prior to that date. The complainant has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint, which clearly raises doubts about the genuineness of the allegations. He submits that from a plain reading of the written complaint, it is evident that the complainant voluntarily provided her ATM card, cheque, and other account details to the applicant for the purpose of withdrawing the amount. Therefore, if there is any dispute regarding the return of the money, the same is purely civil in 3 nature, and no criminal proceedings are maintainable in respect of such allegations. In this regard, the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is not made out in view of the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant and submits that on 03.05.2025, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited into the complainant’s account, and she asked the applicant to withdraw the said amount. Accordingly, the applicant withdrew a total sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- from her account through ATM, cheque, and UPI. It is alleged that the applicant handed over only Rs. 70,000/- to her and refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,40,000/-, stating that he had already spent the said amount and that the complainant was free to take any action against him. Due to this, the complainant suffered a grave financial loss, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material in the case diary, it appears that on 03.05.2025, Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited into the complainant’s account, which the applicant was asked to withdraw. The applicant subsequently withdrew Rs. 5,10,000/- through ATM, cheque, and UPI, but allegedly handed over only Rs. 70,000/- and refused to return the remaining Rs. 4,40,000/-, stating that he had already spent it. As a result, the complainant suffered a significant financial loss. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Pushpendra Shukla, involved in Crime No. 249/2025, registered at 4 Police Station – Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek