1 CGHC010362522026 2026:CGHC:41258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1555 of 2026 Mohammad Allauddin S/o Late Khush Mohammad, Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 51, Madhuban Nagar, Borsi, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ...Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent-State :Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 22/09/2026 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. 251/2026 registered at Police Station – Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh – Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.07.2026, the wife of deceased Ganeshwar Janghel lodged a written report alleging that the deceased and the applicant, who had known to each other for several years and had studied Civil Engineering together, were involved in civil contract work. It is alleged that on the applicant's advice, the deceased obtained a contract work valued at approximately Rs. 55,00,000/- in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHE), in connection with which VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.24 14:51:46 +0530 2 certain monetary dues remained outstanding between them. It is further alleged that due to financial difficulties, the deceased had taken loans and sold agricultural land. On 15.06.2026, the deceased went to Bhilai to settle the accounts with the applicant and thereafter informed his mother that the applicant is not returning his money. Subsequently, on 16.06.2026, the deceased consumed poison at his house situated at Village Borai and died. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, crime was registered against the applicant and other accused persons. 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 main allegation is against co-accused Naveen Kumar Verma, whose name is mentioned in the FIR and who has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRCA No. 1336 of 2026 vide order dated 17.08.2026. It is submitted that the case of the present applicant stands on an even better footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant, being an SDO, had allegedly accepted the bribe in connivance with co-accused Naveen Kumar Verma and, therefore, there is a direct allegation against the applicant. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Naveen Kumar Verma, against whom an allegation was levelled that he had induced the deceased to invest money for obtaining the contract, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRCA No. 1336 of 2026 vide order dated 17.08.2026. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 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 (251/2026), 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/- d (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE vaibhav