1 CGHC010246012026 2026:CGHC:28932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1066 of 2026 Shekh Salim Ibrahim S/o Ibrahim Mahmood Sheikh, Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Balaji Mandir, Said Nagar, Ranala, Kamthi, Police Station Kamthi, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. (Wrongly Mention C. G. In Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Hathbandh, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Rajgir, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Supriya Upasena, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 221/2025, registered at Police Station – Hathbandh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 319 (2), 318(4), 3(5) and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanjhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Neerja Verma, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Hathband alleging that a Hywa 2 vehicle bearing registration No. CG-22-W-8845 had been purchased through finance from Hinduja Finance Company. Owing to default in payment of certain installments, on 08.07.2025, present applicant along with three other persons, allegedly claiming themselves to be recovery agents of the finance company, arrived and informed the complainant that they were taking possession of the vehicle due to non-payment of the outstanding installments. They allegedly showed certain documents relating to recovery proceedings and stated that the vehicle would be returned only after the dues were cleared. On the basis of the complaint, the matter was investigated and the present crime was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has already been filed. He submits that solely on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused – Sameer Kumbhare, the present applicant has been implicated in the instant crime in question. It is also contended that the co-accused, namely, Yasin Khan, S/o Musir Khan, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4417 of 2026 and, therefore, the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that though the co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed 3 in MCRC No.4417 of 2026, but the said co-accused was arrested and was released on regular bail, and the present one is anticipatory bail application, moreover, the applicant, who is resident of State of Maharasthra, is allegedly said to have projected himself to be recovery agent of the finance company and taking possession of the vehicle due to non-payment of the outstanding installments stating that the vehicle would be returned only after the dues were cleared, but subsequently, it was revealed that aforesaid vehicle had neither been taken on behalf of the finance company nor deposited with it, and, thereby disclosing a case of cheating and misappropriation. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available, it transpires that though the co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 passed in MCRC No.4417 of 2026, but the said co-accused was arrested and was released on regular bail, and the present one is anticipatory bail application, moreover, the applicant is said to have projected himself to be recovery agent of the finance company and taking possession of the vehicle due to non-payment of the outstanding installments stating that that the vehicle would be returned only after the dues were cleared, but subsequently, it was revealed that aforesaid vehicle had neither been taken on behalf of the finance company or deposited with 4 it, and, thereby disclosing a case of cheating and misappropriation, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Shekh Salim Ibrahim, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 221/2025, registered at Police Station – Hathbandh, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 319 (2), 318(4), 3(5) and 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanjhita, 2023 is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.13 15:45:12 +0530