1 CGHC010306722026 2026:CGHC:36472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1346 of 2026 Sitesh Kumar Panigrahi S/o Shri Durga Prasad Panigrahi Aged About 30 Years R/o Gopalpur, Tahsil- Dabhara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In-Charge Police Station- Pusour, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Badgaiya, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 17/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant alleged that the applicant, claiming to have contacts with the Additional Collector and representing that he was capable of securing a government job, induced the complainant to pay a total amount of JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.18 17:44:30 +0530 2 ₹28,27,300/- on the promise of securing employment. When the promised employment was not provided and the complainant demanded return of the money, the applicant allegedly avoided repayment and subsequently arranged cheques through co- accused Vivek Kumar, which were dishonoured. It is further alleged that the applicant had similarly taken an amount of ₹3,77,000/- from Munna Prasad Dansena and 8,00,000/- from ₹ Devkumar on the pretext of securing government jobs. On the basis of the complaint dated 22.01.2026, Crime No. 17/2026 was registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the co-accused has already been granted regular bail by this Court and that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family. It is contended that if the applicant is arrested the same would adversely affect the entire family. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail, as the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates his involvement in a racket relating to securing government jobs. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the present application. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.5.2026 passed in MCRCA No.821/2026. The applicant is now seeking parity with the co-accused, who has been granted regular bail. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the material available on record indicating the alleged involvement of the applicant in a racket pertaining to providing government jobs and also particularly considering the fact that the applicant is absconding and as the regular bail granted to co-accused namely Vivek Sharma in MCRC No. 7078/2026 on 14.08.2026 on the ground that the charge-sheet has been filed against the said co-accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve the protection of anticipatory bail. The ground of parity, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not persuade this Court to grant such relief. 7. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant, Sitesh Kumar Panigrahi, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 17/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby rejected. Sd/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti