1 CGHC010299582026 2026:CGHC:34558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1273 of 2026 Mohd. Zafar Ansari S/o Iqbal Ahmed Aged About 31 Years R/o 71/78 Ahmed Ganj, Tahsil- Sadar, Janpad Prayagraj, District- Prayagraj (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 06.08.2026 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 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.07 11:27:03 +0530 2 arrest in connection with Crime No.702/2024, registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that several complainants, namely Ratnamani Tandi, Raju Mahanand, Malyawanti, Hema, Jharna Nasak, Rani Yadav, Lata Yadav, Indu Chauhan and Leela, jointly lodged a written complaint at Police Station Tikrapara alleging that the present Applicant and the co- accused persons induced them to obtain finance from various finance companies on the pretext that they would either provide them the financed goods or pay them the equivalent amount. It is alleged that the Applicant and the co-accused collected photocopies of the complainants' PAN Cards, Aadhaar Cards and bank passbooks, obtained their signatures on certain documents and processed finance in their names through different finance companies. However, neither were the financed goods delivered to the complainants nor was any money paid to them. Subsequently, when the finance companies started demanding payment of monthly instalments (EMIs), the complainants came to know that finance had already been obtained in their names and that they had been cheated. 3 Accordingly, the offence as mentioned above was registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant was merely working as an agent under the co-accused, who was engaged in the business of dealing in electronic items and had no role in the alleged commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the Applicant had no knowledge of the registration of the present crime and came to know about his implication only through the co-accused. He further submits that co-accused Saif Ali and Mohammad Imran have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2024 passed in MCRCA No.1167/2024 and since the case of the present Applicant stands on the same footing, he is also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the present Applicant is a named accused in the FIR, whereas the co-accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail, were not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the Applicant has been absconding for the last two years and therefore, he cannot claim the benefit 4 of parity with the co-accused and accordingly, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected. 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 material available in the case diary, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the present Applicant is a named accused in the FIR, the allegation that he has played a principal role in the commission of the offence involving multiple victims, the fact that the Applicant has been absconding for the last two years and has not cooperated with the investigation, the co-accused, who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court, were not named in the FIR and were granted such relief way back in the year 2024 on their own facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Applicant is not entitled to claim the benefit of parity and as such, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant –Mohd. Zafar Ansari, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.702/2024, registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) for 5 alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC, is hereby rejected. 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