1 2026:CGHC:2482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 86 of 2026 Ritesh Kumar Chaure S/o Siddharth Chaure Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. A/55, Ward No. 45, Behind Barfani Dham, Jeevan Colony, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Mr. Amitesh Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. This 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. 535/2025 registered at Police Station – Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.16 12:05:20 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainants namely Manish Kumar Yadav, Vipat Yadav and Mahesh Dhurve along with Prahlad Singh Dhurve alleged that the applicant introduced himself as the son of a Managing Director of a steel plant and assured them employment as supervisor and guard in the said plant, on the basis of which they allegedly paid a total amount of Rs.3,80,000/-, including Rs.3,10,000/- in cash on 10.10.2025 near Kalpana Restaurant and Rs.70,000/- deposited on 03.11.2025 into the applicant’s bank account; it is further alleged that the applicant dishonestly induced the complainants by making false representations and thereby cheated them, and that subsequent inquiry revealed the said acts to constitute offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, leading to registration of FIR No. 535/2025 against the applicant, on the basis of which the prosecution asserts that the applicant intentionally deceived the complainants for wrongful gain and is liable to be prosecuted accordingly. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits, there is no mens rea or dishonest intention attributable to the applicant, who has not even travelled to Kawardha in the last two years and does not know the complainants, thereby striking at the very root of the prosecution case under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; on the contrary, the applicant himself immediately reported the credit of Rs.70,000/- to the bank and police, the said amount was put on hold and never withdrawn, which completely demolishes the allegation of cheating and clearly establishes absence of criminal intent; the entire case rests merely on 3 oral and uncorroborated allegations without any independent evidence, and even the copy of the FIR has been withheld from the applicant under the pretext of the matter being “case-sensitive”; further, the applicant has been consistently targeted by Shri Kailash Chandravanshi, his former business partner, who, by misusing political influence, has been exerting pressure, issuing threats, and orchestrating false and motivated complaints to coerce the applicant into an unfair compromise and to destroy his professional and educational career, which is evident from the prior disputes, complaints under the SC/ST Act, and pending proceedings under Section 482 CrPC; owing to these malicious acts, the applicant has already suffered severe financial and reputational loss, and the present FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law intended to harass and eliminate him as a competitor; the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction is completely absent, as the applicant never induced the complainant to part with any money; the applicant undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required, and since the case is purely documentary in nature, custodial interrogation is wholly unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose; the applicant, being entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence, poses no flight risk and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence, and therefore, in light of settled judicial principles requiring sensitive exercise of discretion in such circumstances, the applicant humbly prays for appropriate relief from this Hon’ble Court. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, and further considering that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ritesh Kumar Chaure, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 5 adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav