1 CGHC010261662026 2026:CGHC:29669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1091 of 2026 Santosh Das Manikpuri S/o Aghan Das Aged About 48 Years Pvt. S.S.A. Construction, Sajabahari, Chaitma, Police Station Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Civil Line, Korba District- Korba C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As Police Station Civil Line Rampur Instead Of Police Station Civil Line In Impugned Order) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2026 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. 501/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line, Korba District - Korba C.G for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 120B & 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, a complaint lodged by Mr. Shrikant Kesar, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District Korba (C.G.), alleging that the present applicant, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.14 16:15:21 +0530 2 M/s S.S.A. Construction, along with other accused firms, had been awarded work orders for the renovation of hostels and ashrams during the financial year 2021–2022 pursuant to Notices Inviting Tenders (NITs). It is alleged that, as the departmental records pertaining to the said tenders were not available, an inquiry was conducted by a committee constituted under the supervision of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, which revealed that the renovation works executed by the accused firms were of substandard quality and were not commensurate with the expenditure of approximately Rs. 80 lakhs claimed to have been incurred. Thereafter, the accused firms, including the present applicant, were served with notices directing them to rectify the deficiencies in the executed works within one month in accordance with the terms of the agreements; however, they allegedly failed to do so. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered against the applicant and the other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and apprehending his arrest in connection therewith, the applicant has filed the present application seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 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 the applicant was awarded the work through a valid tender process and completed the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. After completion, the work was inspected and found satisfactory by the competent authorities, and the payment was released only after due verification. It is further submitted that the allegations of substandard work are not supported by any independent technical or expert report 3 and that the FIR has been lodged nearly two years after completion of the work without any satisfactory explanation. Learned counsel contends that the dispute, if any, is contractual in nature and has wrongly been given a criminal colour, and that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC are not prima facie made out. It is further submitted that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely Kush Kumar Dewangan, Raj Jaiswal and Ashutosh Mishra, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 1345/2025, 1346/2025 and 1352/2025, and as the allegations against the present applicant stand on the same footing, he is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and therefore, he is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the case diary is not available. She further submitted that the applicant has three criminal antecedents and, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 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 advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the similarly situated co-accused, namely Kush Kumar Dewangan, Raj 4 Jaiswal and Ashutosh Mishra, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 1345/2025, 1346/2025 and 1352/2025 vide order dated 08.09.2025, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems 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 – Santosh Das Manikpuri, on executing a personal bond and one local 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 him 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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 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