1 2026:CGHC:2021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 65 of 2026 • Shrikant Jha S/o Radheshyam Jha Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Rajhrababa Road Pandrdalli, Dallirajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P S Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. N.Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/01/2026 1. This is first Anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.375/2025 registered at Police Station – Rajhara, Dallirajhara, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, IPC1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on a written complaint made by the complainant Nageshwar Sahu on 03.12.2025, it was alleged that in the year 2019, the applicant assured the complainant that he VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.15 11:20:29 +0530 2 will get the complainant employed with Bhilai Steel Plant in lieu of amount of Rs. 10,00,000.00. It was further alleged that transaction amounting to Rs. 21,70,000.00 was also done in the complainant's bank account at the behest of the applicant herein and that the applicant also failed to return the amounts to other persons namely: Bhushan Sahu, Devendra Kumar, Tamendra Kumar, Dikesh Kumar, Kumesh Ram, Pulkit Sahu and Munna Sharma. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation levelled against the present applicant is that n the year 2019, the applicant assured the complainant that he will get the complainant employed with Bhilai Steel Plant in lieu of amount of Rs. 10,00,000.00. It was further alleged that transaction amounting to Rs. 21,70,000.00 was also done in the complainant's bank account at the behest of the applicant herein and that the applicant also failed to return the amounts to other persons. He further submits that there is a six years of delay in lodging FIR against the present applicant, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that applicant is having seven previous criminal antecedent bearing crime No.309 of 2002 for offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC, and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, bearing crime No.135 of 2008 for offence under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323 of IPC, bearing crime No. 113 of 2021 for offence under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act, bearing crime No.65 of 2023 for offence under Sections294, 506, 323 of IPC, in crime No.361 of 2025 for offence under Sections 296, 351(3), 74 of 3 BNSand 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, crime No. 367 of 2025 for offence under Sections 296, 351(3),3(5) of BNS and crime No.375 of 2025 for offence under Sections 420 of IPC, it appears that applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and allegation levelled against the present applicant and considering the fact that applicant is having seven previous criminal antecedent, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Shrikant Jha involved in Crime No.375/2025 registered at Police Station – Rajhara, Dallirajhara, District – Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC1860, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office 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 vaishali