1 CGHC010259812026 2026:CGHC:29382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1085 of 2026 • Lal Bahadur Sarthi S/o Sardar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Parsa, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.357/2025, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District – Sarguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per prosecution story, in brief is that, complainant has made written complaint to the concerned police station is that the accused persons were opened bank pass book from many bank through aadhar card, Pan, Photo of the some bank holder and thereafter, they have illegal kept their Bank Passbook, ATM, Cheque book of the bank VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.07.16 17:36:30 +0530 2 account holder but they have not returned the same till today. Based upon the written complaint, the police has registered the offence under section 318 against the accused (4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that four co-accused persons have already been granted bail. Learned counsel also submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not disclose or mention the name of the present applicant. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the case pertains to an incident that occurred on 21.04.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has been absconding since the date of the incident. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant 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 nature and gravity of allegations, submission made by learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and also considering the fact that as the matter pertains to the year 2025 and the applicant has been absconding since the incident took place, and has now come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep 3 Sharma, reported in {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Lal Bahadur Sarthi, filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.357/2025, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Ambikapur District – Sarguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali