1 CGHC010282082026 2026:CGHC:32082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1182 of 2026 Raiyani Anilbhai S/o Gobarbhai Aged About 49 Years R/o D-304, Mangalam Residency, Oop. Praymari School, Utran, Surat, Gujrat 394105 ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Muskaan Fatwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 27.07.2026 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. 179/2025 registered at Police Station – Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, came into contact with the present applicant during a train VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.28 12:14:15 +0530 2 journey in the year 2012, and thereafter they developed cordial relations and remained in regular telephonic contact. It is alleged that in the year 2021, the applicant represented to the complainant that he could secure employment for him in the Police Department and the Electricity Department in the State of Chhattisgarh. Believing the said representation, the complainant allegedly paid a total sum of Rs.15,00,000 to the applicant in different instalments. It is further alleged that when the complainant later demanded the promised employment, the applicant started avoiding him. According to the prosecution, the applicant subsequently transferred Rs.50,000 to the complainant through Google Pay on 05.10.2022 and another Rs.10,000 through online transfer on 29.03.2023. On the basis of these allegations, Crime No. 179/2025 was registered at Police Station Pusaur, District Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, against the present applicant. 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 FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, as the complainant was admittedly aware by the year 2022 that the alleged promise had not been fulfilled and had last contacted the applicant on 23.04.2023, whereas the FIR was registered only on 13.06.2025. It is contended that such inordinate delay casts serious doubt on the prosecution case and indicates that the criminal proceedings are an afterthought. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Surat, Gujarat, and is an established businessman engaged in property development 3 and other commercial ventures, having no connection with any Government Department or recruitment authority in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the amount alleged in the FIR was paid in connection with a proposed business/property development venture and not for securing Government employment. Since the proposed business could not materialize, the applicant refunded part of the amount, including Rs.60,000 through online transfers, and also repaid substantial amounts in cash, which has been deliberately suppressed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil and commercial in nature and does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, particularly the existence of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The applicant has a fixed place of residence and business, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence, and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court. It is also submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., no custodial interrogation is warranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that there are specific allegations against the present applicant of inducing the complainant to part with Rs.15,00,000 on the false promise of securing a Government job. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, and the applicant also has 4 one criminal antecedent. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations as well as the applicant's previous criminal record, learned State Counsel prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the case diary, and the material available on record, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against the present applicant of inducing the complainant to part with Rs. 15,00,000 on the false promise of securing a Government job. The investigation is still in progress, and the custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further, the applicant has one criminal antecedent, which is also a relevant factor while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Raiyani Anilbhai, involved in Crime No. 179/2025 registered at Police Station – Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav