1 CGHC010349362026 2026:CGHC:39826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1506 of 2026 Ankit Chandrakar S/o Krishna Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khauli, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Tendukona, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent-State :Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11/09/2026 1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 97/2026 registered at Police Station – Tendukona District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complaint was filed by Rakesh Chakradhari alleging that the applicant had collected money from him on the promise of providing him a job in a Government liquor shop. However, when the job was not provided and the complainant requested the applicant to return money, the applicant refused to do so. Based on the said complaint, a crime was registered against the applicant. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.16 14:29:01 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the work of providing jobs in the area was being carried out by Tarvinder Bhatiya and his associates. It is submitted that Tarvinder Bhatiya had received the money from the applicant, and after receiving the amount from the applicant, the same was transferred to the bank accounts of Tarvinder Bhatiya's son and wife. Screenshots/documents evidencing the said transfers have been placed on record. It is further submitted that, after receipt of the written report, police called the applicant and recorded his statement, wherein he clearly disclosed the manner in which the amount was received and transferred to Tarvinder Bhatiya. However, despite the same, Tarvinder Bhatiya has not been made an accused in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there is a specific allegation against the applicant in the case diary. He further submits that the documents on record show the transfer of the amount to the account of the co-accused, Domar Singh Tandi, and that, as per the allegations, of the present applicant Ankit Chandrakar was also assisting him. He further contends that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was paid in cash by Bhusan Chakradhari to the applicant. Therefore, there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3 6. This Court posed question to learned State counsel as to whether the statement of the applicant is available on record. He submits that a copy of the statement is not available in the case diary. 7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. 8. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (97/2026), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/-Sd (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE vaibhav