1 2026:CGHC:2298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 73 of 2026 Dilip Chouhan S/o Sarthi Chouhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Vill. Rangadih, Thana Baramkela, Tah. Baramkela, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2026 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. 192/2024 registered at Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 408, 34 of the IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.15 13:34:51 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an F.I.R has been lodged by the complainant named Anil Kumar Agrawal that in his Rice Mill on 29.10.2023 at about 4 PM truck bearing JH 01 EU 2199 was loaded with Rice Worth Rs. 4,43,800/- which was entrusted to Driver named Rajeshwar Prasad to be transported to M/s Pappu Kumar Khuti (Jharkhand). After 2 days when complainant enquired upon owner of M/S Pappu Khunti it was revealed that Rice loaed truck has not reached to them, thereafter complainant inquired to Present applicant who happens to be transporter of the truck and then present applicant inquired and came to know that Driver has sold the Rice and parked the truck at Yard and owner of truck is Sakir Ansari. Hence the report was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has not committed the alleged offence and was not even present on the date of the incident; in fact, he had already tendered his resignation, though the same was not accepted by the employer, and only thereafter his name was wrongly included in this false case. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Subhash Chouhan, being the proprietor and owner of the shop, is solely responsible for its affairs, whereas the applicant was merely a worker, and the said co-accused has already been tried and convicted by the Trial Court and subsequently granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court in revision. The applicant has also been previously implicated in Crime No. 94/2022 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar under Section 409 of IPC, in which he has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.07.2024. In the same crime, the co-accused Subhash Chouhan 3 has been convicted under Sections 420, 34 and 408 of IPC and has again been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court in CR.R. No. 928/2025. Moreover, the applicant is suffering from dislocation of the hip bone and has been advised surgery by the doctor, and therefore, sending him to jail would cause him serious medical hardship. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, hence there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, and he undertakes to furnish adequate security and to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel for the non-applicant/State opposes the bail application, submitting that the case was registered on 19.04.2024 against the applicant and the co-accused, and while the co-accused Subhash Chouhan was arrested, tried and convicted, the present applicant deliberately absconded during investigation and trial, due to which the charge-sheet was filed against him as an absconder and his trial was separated. It is further contended that even the regular bail of the co-accused was earlier rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 5740 of 2024, and therefore, in view of the conduct of the applicant in evading the process of law, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief and the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the 4 allegations, and the material available in the case diary, this Court finds that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. It is evident that the case was registered against the applicant and the co-accused on 19.04.2024, and while the co-accused Subhash Chouhan was arrested, tried and convicted, the present applicant deliberately remained absconding during the course of investigation and trial, as a result of which the charge-sheet was filed against him as an absconder and his trial had to be separated from that of the co-accused. The conduct of the applicant in evading the process of law clearly reflects his lack of bona fides, and even the regular bail of the co-accused was earlier rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5740 of 2024 vide order dated 14.08.2024, considering the seriousness of the offence. In view of these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any ground for grant of bail, and accordingly, the present bail application is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Dilip Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 192/2024 registered at Police Station – Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 408, 34 of the IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav