1 2026:CGHC:14101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 447 of 2026 • Kamalkishore Sahu S/o B.L. Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Kanchanganga Phase-2, D.D. Nagar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Now Sarangarh- Bilaigarh) (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 24.03.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 11/2021, registered at Police Station – Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in short, is that -1 That, as per brief fact of the prosecution case is that, on the basis of written report VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.03.27 14:39:21 +0530 2 lodged by complainant Jagdish Prasad, the police registered the offence under Section 420 of IPC and as per the averment of the written report, his maternal brother introduced him with the applicant and the applicant assured the informant that his son will be provided the job of Peon and demanded a sum of Rs.3 lacs, out of which Rs.2 lacks has been given to the applicant and a sum of Rs.25000/- has also been transferred to the account of applicant and thereafter the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- twice in the account of applicant and when the job was not provided to the son of complainant and the applicant failed to return the money, the FIR was lodged by the complainant against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant borrowed the money for the purpose of his work, but when the applicant failed to return the money, the FIR has been lodged by the complainant in the year 2021 and no reason has been mentioned with regard the delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, submitting that FIR of the incident was registered on 04.02.2021 and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant as an absconder and charge sheet was filed showing him as absconding. He further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of the offence. She also submits that applicant taken money from the complainant on the pretext of providing job and he has two criminal antecedent, and both are mentioned in the 3 bail application at paragraph No.4, it appears that applicant is a habitual offender therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that FIR of the incident was registered on 04.02.2021 and the applicant has been absconding since the incident took place, there is every likelihood, that if he is granted bail, he will abscond again, and further, hamper the trial, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Kamalkishore Sahu, involved in Crime No. 11/2021, registered at Police Station – Bilaigarh, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali