1 2026:CGHC:20980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 663 of 2026 • Rakesh Kapri S/o Mahendra Prasad Kapri Aged About 48 Years R/o 17th Floor, Ambience Court, Sector 19d Vashi, Navi Mumbai- - 400703. ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Civil Line Rampur Korba, Police Station, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Anjana Sharma, Advocate appears through video conference and Mr.Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy.A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.0041/2024, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Korba (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. 2. As per prosecution story, in brief, is that the FIR was lodged on 21.01.2024 by the complainant Aftab Ahmed alleging that the accused person whose name in the FIR was cheating and defrauded VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.07 17:25:34 +0530 2 the complainant by giving false assurance. The alleged incident took place in the year 2020-2024 but the FIR was registered in the year 2024 against the accused person, thereafter the accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating, particularly the absence of any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The dispute, in essence, arises out of a contractual arrangement relating to educational consultancy services and has been given a criminal colour for oblique purposes. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the complainant, including voluntary participation in meetings and making payments through banking channels over a period of time, negates any allegation of inducement or deception at the inception. The entire matter is documentary in nature, and all relevant records are already in possession of the investigating agency, rendering custodial interrogation wholly unnecessary. It is also submitted that the alleged grievance has arisen due to subsequent developments, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and judicial intervention affecting the course in question, which were beyond the control of the applicant. She further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident with deep roots in society, has been running a lawful business for several years, and there is no likelihood of absconding. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. He further stated that, from the date of the alleged transaction to the verification of the veracity of the 3 allegations, there has been an unexplained delay of four years; and this indicates that the complaint was lodged subsequently and after due deliberation. Therefore, she prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that the allegation against the applicant/accused is that he represented himself as running a large counselling agency and established contact with the complainant by sending messages through whatsapp. Thereafter, the complainant was called to the office of the accused, where discussions were held. It is alleged that the accused assured the complainant that he would secure admission for him in the College of Physicians and Surgeons diploma course, for which an approximate amount of 26,00,000/- was demanded as fees. Acting upon such ₹ representations, the complainant paid a total sum of 22,25,000/- to ₹ the accused on different dates through online transactions, and same is mentioned in the bail rejection order passed by learned trial Court. However, neither was the admission secured as promised, nor was the amount received by the accused returned to the complainant, thereby constituting the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant had been absconding since the time of the incident, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary/material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. The applicant is alleged to have misrepresented himself as 4 running a counselling agency and the accused assured the complainant that he would secure admission for him in the College of Physicians and Surgeons diploma course, for which an approximate amount of 26,00,000/- was demanded as fees. Acting upon such ₹ representations, the complainant paid a total sum of 22,25,000/- to ₹ the accused on different dates through online transactions, and same is mentioned in the bail rejection order passed by learned trial Court. Prima facie, the material on record indicates that despite receiving the said amount, neither was the admission secured nor was the amount returned. Furthermore, it has been specifically alleged that the applicant has been absconding since the time of the incident and the case was registered against the applicant in the year 2024. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Rakesh Kapri, filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.0041/2024, registered at Police Station – Civil Line, District – Korba (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali