1 CGHC010306512026 2026:CGHC:36038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1313 of 2026 Amitesh Satpathi S/o Tulesh Satpathi Aged About 31 Years R/o Satnami Gali, Sangam Chouk, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Swarnakar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 13.08.2026 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 arrest in connection with Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that, on the pretext of providing a job and a plot, he took a total amount of Rs. 7,55,000/- from the complainant, namely, Bhuvan Das Manikpuri, on various occasions and in several installments. However, the applicant neither provided the promised job or plot nor returned the said PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.14 17:33:00 +0530 2 amount. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the crime in question against the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the applicant, which has already been repaid by the applicant. It is further submitted that the complainant had executed an affidavit dated 24.12.2025 before the Notary, wherein he acknowledged receipt of the said amount and stated that no amount remained due from the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the fact regarding repayment of the amount has also been specifically pleaded in paragraph No.6.3 of the application. It is further submitted that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that, as per the instructions received by him and from the case diary, it is apparent that the complainant has disputed the filing of the said affidavit and has stated that the affidavit was forged and fabricated and was not signed by him. It is further submitted that the complainant has not received any amount from the applicant. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary, it is 3 apparent that the complainant has disputed the filing of the said affidavit and has stated that the affidavit was forged and fabricated and was not signed by him, further the complainant has not received any amount from the applicant, this Court is of the view that the present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Amitesh Satpathi, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 368/2026, registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti