1 CGHC010284252026 2026:CGHC:33219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1227 of 2026 Suraj Pratap Vishwakarma S/o Mahendra Prasad, Aged About 37 Years R/o 38/1, Majhapara, Primary Health Center, Ajabnagar, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)- 497001 ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, P.S. Keshkal Thana, District Kondagaon, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. SS Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 31.07.2026 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.39/2026, registered at SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.31 16:58:02 +0530 2 Police Station – Keshkal Thana, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is serving as the Headmaster of Government Middle School, Toraipara, lodged a written complaint alleging that he was induced by co-accused Virendra Tirkey and other persons to obtain loans from various banks pursuant to an agreement executed between them. It is alleged that after the loans were sanctioned, about 60–65% of the loan amount was withdrawn and an aggregate sum of Rs.35,39,800/- was credited into the complainant's salary account, which was thereafter transferred to the bank accounts of various persons at the instance of the accused. It is further alleged that, although Virendra Tirkey had assured repayment of the entire loan amount and initially deposited certain installments, he subsequently failed to honour the commitment, resulting in deduction of EMIs from the complainant's salary account in excess of his monthly income, thereby causing him financial loss and mental distress. On the basis of the said complaint, offences mentioned above, were registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application. 3 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 a bare reading of the First Information Report reveals that the complainant voluntarily obtained loans from various banking institutions and himself transferred the amounts through lawful banking channels, without any allegation that the present Applicant induced or facilitated the sanction of such loans. It is further submitted that the Applicant, who is the proprietor of Suraj Traders, had received an amount of Rs.15,39,800/- in his bank account at the instance of co-accused Virendra Tirkey, who represented the same to be repayment of his dues by the complainant, and the Applicant, acting bona fide and without knowledge of the source of the funds, transferred the said amount to Virendra Tirkey, his wife and his firm through banking channels. It is further submitted that a substantial portion of the said amount had already been transferred back to the complainant prior to registration of the FIR, which fact has been suppressed. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the Applicant is alleged to have 4 received the cheated amount and has not preferred any bail application in the three connected cases. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the case diary material, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific allegation that an amount of Rs.15,39,800/-, forming part of the alleged cheated amount, was credited into the bank account of the present Applicant and further considering that the Applicant is involved in three more cases of similar nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Suraj Pratap Vishwakarma, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.39/2026, registered at Police Station – Keshkal Thana, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS , is hereby rejected. 5 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya