1 2026:CGHC:5006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1216 of 2025 Abdul Naeem S/o Late Abdul Dhani (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As Abdul Gyani) Aged About 40 Years R/o 1-4-197 / A, Siddiqui Nagar, Bholakpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, (Andhra Pradesh) ... Applicant (s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S. H. O. Police Station- Shankargarh, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 2. Sahim Nath S/o Raghunath Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Aiyyari Damhatoli, P.S.- Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. GA with Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 173/2022, registered at Police Station– Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complaint was lodged by complainant Sahimnath on 27.12.2022 that one Rajaram Jagal told him that there is scheme for the tractor and agriculture, if he invest money on the company, he will get many times much money and one person will one tractor in the cost of 2 Rs. 1 lacs and other cost company will pay, the complainant believed on the statement of Rajaram and gave him Rs. 5 lacs and further paid some more money but he not returned the money and committed forgery against the complainant, thereby the offence has been committed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the name of the present applicant has not been mentioned in the FIR and the forgery committed by the official of company for which complaint was made by some other person. He would further submit that during investigation some more complaints have received who have taken name of the applicant and the charge sheet has been filed where the name of the applicant has not been mentioned and no material in this regard has been collected by the prosecution. He would further submit that as per memorandum statement of co-accused Sujit Kumar Dey the above stated amount was transferred in the account of Abdul Naim and Uday Shankar Shrivastava, as such memorandum statement of co- accused has no evidentiary value against the applicant, therefore, the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and would submit that the applicant along with other co-accused Sujit Kumar Dey, Vijaynath and Ramlal have been granted regular bail but not granted anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the involvement of the present applicant in the instant case cannot be ruled out as the agreement annexed by the applicant clearly support the contention that the money has been invested to elicit the transferring of fund custodial interrogation of the appliant is very much required. He would further submit that huge amount of Rs. 17,45,000/- has been invested by the complainants and the trial Court has already been convicted co-accused Sujit Kumar Day and Raja Ram 3 whereas the present applicant was absconded and he was not participated in the trial, therefore, applicant may not be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From the material collected by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that there is allegation of pilferage of public funds, prima facie involvement of the applicant cannot be denied as nothing has been placed on record by the applicant to dislodge this fact. Even otherwise, the accused is absconded during trial and the trial has already been commenced in absence of the applicant, as such, to elicit the truth his custodial interrogation is required. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Shrikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another reported 2024(12) SCC 382 has held in paragraphs 30 and 31 as under:- 30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant. 31. The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when their co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail. Though the appellants 4 filed an application, which they themselves described as “bail-cum- surrender application” on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance of non- bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 482 Cr.PC., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 8. Again the Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that power of granting anticipatory bail should be exercised with great degree of circumspection and should not be exercised in routine manner. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah Vs. Kamal Dayani [(2025) 1 SCC 753] has held in paragraphs 57 & 58 as under: 57. This Court has time and again held that the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail should be exercised with great degree of circumspection. Reference in this regard may be made to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24]. 58. Thus, the power to grant anticipatory bail is not to be exercised in a routine manner and the Courts are expected to use this provision with a great degree of circumspection. Once, a Court bearing in mind the strict parameters applicable to grant of anticipatory bail exercises such power, then in such a situation, giving a handle to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused, would virtually negate and frustrate the very purpose behind the order of anticipatory bail. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that the Courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail application routinely impose the restrictive condition whereby, the Investigating Officers are granted blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused, in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct contravention to the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal(supra). The Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari(supra) does not hold good in law as the same runs contrary to the ratio of Sushila Agarwal(supra) and thus, the same stands impliedly overruled.” 9. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah (supra) and also considering the gravity of the offence as the allegation against the applicant is pilferage of public funds. 5 Further considering the fact that this Court has already been rejected anticipatory bail of co-accused Sahai Sandilya in MCRCA No. 308 of 2023 on 28.06.2023, therefore, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.01.30 16:19:53 +0530