1 / 5 2026:CGHC:1739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 54 of 2026 Rajesh Yadu S/o Baldev Yadu, Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 290, Shiv Nagar, Nevaibhatha, Umarpoti, Police Station Neavi, District Durg C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12.01.2026 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory Bail by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 551/2024, registered at Police Station – Supela, District – Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406/34 of IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.13 11:42:41 +0530 2 / 5 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh, by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 1989 of 2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.04.2024, complainant Vishal Kejariwal filed a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Durg, and the Station House Officeг, Supela Bhilai. In his complaint, Kejariwal stated that he had rented 10 trucks to Mohammad Shahanawaj on 13.02.2023, through a written agreement. However, Shahanawaj failed to pay rent from December 2023 to April 29, 2024. When Kejariwal demanded payment and asked about the vehicles, Shahanawaj claimed that all the trucks had been stolen and he would neither return the vehicles nor pay the rent An FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC, and the WAS investigated. During the investigation, it was discovered that another accused, Satyendra Kumar, had given 16 trucks for sale in Jagdalpur and Nagpur, with nine trucks being under an agreement with Shahanawaz and Deepak. The for the vehicles was deposited into the accounts of present applicant Rajesh Yadu and Siddhant. Satyendra Kumar was found to have committed fraud and breach of trust in relation to 18 trucks worth approximately Rs 5 crore, as well as 283 trucks in Bihar. Furthermore, it was found that money from Satyendra Kumar's HDFC bank account had been illegally deposited into the Bank of India account of Rinki Yadav, the wife of accused Rajesh Yadu. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that 3 / 5 as per the written complaint dated 29.04.2024 lodged at Police Station Supela, District Durg, all the transactions regarding the trucks were solely between the complainant and the co-accused Mohd. Shahnawaj pursuant to a written agreement dated 13.02.2023, and the applicant had neither any knowledge of nor any involvement in the said transactions, which is evident from the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly showing that the complainant and the present applicant never had any contact or dealings; that it is also pertinent that the wife of the present applicant, Smt. Rinki Yadav, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court on 08.01.2025 in MCRCA No. 18/2025; that the submission of the learned State Counsel regarding filing of charge-sheet against the applicant as an absconder and addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471-B IPC is factually incorrect, as no charge-sheet has yet been filed in the present matter and only Sections 420 and 406/34 IPC are involved, which carry a maximum punishment of seven years, thereby entitling the applicant to the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., holding that arrest is not mandatory in such cases and issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. is sufficient; that one of the co- accused, Vinod Patel, has already been granted bail by the learned Court below on 29.08.2024, and the applicant, being a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title with his movable and immovable properties situated there, is neither likely to abscond nor to tamper with the evidence, and is ready to furnish adequate 4 / 5 surety and to abide by all the directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the Non- applicant would oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Rajesh Yadu, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 5 / 5 (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav