1 2026:CGHC:22316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 720 of 2026 • Jay Prakash Yadav S/o Late Manharan Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o -Kosa Nagar, Ward No. -02, Behind Jay Institute, Post Office Motilal Nehru Nagar District- Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station In-Charge, Through P.S. Supela District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. This is First anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.234/2026 registered at Police Station – Supela, Rudri, District- Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Mithilesh Kumar lodged an FIR at Police Station Supela, District- Durg, that the applicant on the pretext of securing employment to the relatives of complainant namely Dhaneshwari Sahu, Keema Sahu, Domeshwar Sahu, Manoj Kumar, Mahesh Kumar and Vishesh Das, dishonestly VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.14 11:28:03 +0530 2 induced them and took a sum of Rupees 16,00,000/- from them for the said purpose and thereby committed the offence of Cheating. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the complainant, Mithilesh Kumar, lodged an FIR alleging that the applicant, on the pretext of securing employment for the complainant’s relatives, namely Dhaneshwari Sahu, Keema Sahu, Domeshwar Sahu, Manoj Kumar, Mahesh Kumar and Vishesh Das, dishonestly induced them and obtained a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- from them for the said purpose. Further more investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allegation levelled against the applicant and also considering the fact that on the pretext of securing employment for the complainant’s relatives, the applicant dishonestly induced them and obtained a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- from them. as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Jay Prakash Yadav filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.234/2026 registered at 3 Police Station – Supela, Rudri, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali