-1- CGHC010361152026 2026:CGHC:42842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1545 of 2026 Durgesh Verma S/o Late Yogendra Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nandori, Tahsil-Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 01/10/2026 1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.310 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Balod, District- Balod (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 3 (5) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Damin Sahu, submitted a written complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that one Yogesh Sahu informed him that he had paid a sum of 3,30,000/- to co-accused Lata Dhiwar for ₹ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.10.03 15:01:25 +0530 -2- securing a government job on the post of Computer Teacher at High School. Yogesh Sahu further informed the complainant that, if she was interested in obtaining a government job, she could approach the said Lata Dhiwar. Thereafter, upon coming to know of the same, complainant, along with Bindu Dubey and Lalita Gajendra, met Lata Dhiwar. Lata Dhiwar represented that she had connections with the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, and assured them of securing government jobs in the Agriculture Department and Hospital, for which she demanded 2,00,000/- from each person. Relying upon the said ₹ assurances, the complainant, Bindu Dubey and Lalita Gajendra allegedly paid a total sum of 5,50,000/- to Lata Dhiwar. ₹ However, Lata Dhiwar failed to provide any government job to the complainant or his associates. On the basis of the complaint, an offence under Section 318(4) of the IPC was registered against Lata Dhiwar. Subsequently, the name of the present applicant was also added in connection with the commission of the aforesaid offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He has not committed any such offence. He submits that it is Yogesh Sahu who accepted money and issued forged and fabricated order of appointment of some persons. There is no involvement of the applicant in accepting money and giving assurance for providing employment. There is no criminal antecedent of applicant. -3- Applicant will cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant has obtained amount of other persons and got the amount transferred and thereafter has obtained amount through the account holder and has kept the said amount, from which, it is appearing that there is direct involvement of applicant in commission of aforementioned offence. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is suffering from medical ailment, namely, sickle cell disease, and as per the certificate issued by the concerned doctor, the applicant has been assessed to have 40% disability. It is further submitted that the applicant requires regular medical treatment and proper care, and that failure to provide the requisite medical attention and living conditions may, aggravate his disease. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has verified the disability certificate from the concerned hospital and certificate is reported to be genuine one. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the -4- case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation, medical ailment with which applicant is suffering, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application. 9. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, 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 remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.” Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen