1 2026:CGHC:7935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 236 of 2026 Gopal Maharaj S/o Late Mahesh Maharaj, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 6. Koriya Colliery, Chirmiri, Police Station And Tahsil - Chirmiri, District- Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (M.C.B.) (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chirimiri District- Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (M.C.B.) (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.16 08:50:34 +0530 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.46/2026, registered at Police Station – Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri,-Bharatpur (MCB) (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Jairam Singh lodged a written report on 23.01.2026 stating that on 19.12.2024 the Applicant arranged a loan of Rs.1,90,000/- in his name for a hardware shop from Punjab National Bank, Haldibadi and represented that the loan amount would be transferred to a hardware wholesaler and thereafter paid to the complainant in cash. It is alleged that the Applicant induced the complainant to sign documents acknowledging receipt of goods and payment, though neither goods nor money were actually received. The Applicant is further alleged to have obtained Rs.70,000/- from the complainant through PhonePe and assured payment of the remaining amount, but ultimately cheated the complainant of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also alleged that the complainant’s friends, Vinod Kumar and Vikram Singh were similarly cheated of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.4,60,000/- respectively. Based on these 3 allegations, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per the FIR itself, the complainant had independently applied for a loan from Punjab National Bank for purchase of hardware from Vicky Enterprises and the loan amount was directly transferred to the said firm, thereby negating any allegation of cheating by the Applicant. It is further submitted that the complainant had, in fact, borrowed money from the Applicant and the Applicant has already repaid a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/- through transactions made on different dates, including payments routed through the PhonePe account of his brother, duly supported by transaction records placed on record. Learned counsel contends that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about three years from the alleged date of incident, which indicates mala fide intention and personal vendetta and that two other connected FIRs arising out of the same transaction have been filed by relatives of the complainant, suggesting a concerted attempt to falsely implicate the Applicant. It is also submitted that in a similar connected matter, the Applicant has already been granted 4 bail by the learned Trial Court. Considering these circumstances and the nature of allegations, learned Counsel prays that the Applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the Applicant’s involvement and the investigation is still in progress. It is contended that the pleas regarding repayment and financial transactions raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined at this stage and the delay in lodging the FIR does not diminish the seriousness of the accusations. He further submits that the requirement of custodial interrogation and the likelihood of the Applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence warrant rejection of the application, therefore, it may be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the involvement of the Applicant and the investigation is still at a progressing stage. The defence put forth by the Applicant regarding repayment of money and the nature of transactions gives rise to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be 5 examined at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail. The delay in lodging the FIR, in the facts of the present case, does not by itself dilute the seriousness of the accusations. Considering the requirement of custodial interrogation for effective investigation and the possibility of the Applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to him. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant – Gopal Maharaj filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.46/2026, registered at Police Station – Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri,-Bharatpur (MCB) (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, is hereby rejected. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya