1 2026:CGHC:2129-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 22 of 2026 Rajat Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 33 Years R/o Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Station House Officer Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Respondent authorities to permit the Petitioner to furnish his bail bonds and participate in the investigation in safe and secure environment, and to record his statement either in the office of the Superintendent of Police or Durg Court or any neutral place designated by this Hon'ble Court, without threat of arrest or coercion. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Superintendent of Police, Durg, to ensure that no undue pressure, harassment or illegal detention is caused to the Petitioner by Police Station Padmanabhpur during the course of investigation. (iii) That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit with regard to this case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier three FIRs were registered against the petitioner bearing Crime Nos. 718/2025, 221/2025, and 286/2025, all alleging substantially similar allegations relating to purported promises of securing government employment. In each of these cases, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court, and after detailed consideration, anticipatory bail was granted in : MCRCA No. 1042/2025 (Crime No. 718/2025 P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur), MCRCA No. 1266/2025 (Crime No. 221/2025-P.S. Padmanabhpur, Durg), MCRCA No. 1473/2025 (Crime No. 286/2025 P.S. Padmanabhpur, Durg). He further submitted that without any new material, P.S. Padmanabhpur has now allegedly added the petitioner's brother as an accused, thereby creating a fresh ground to exert pressure 3 and possibly rope in the petitioner again. He also submitted that the petitioner has a bona fide and immediate apprehension that if he appears at P.S. Padmanabhpur, Durg, then he may be detained or arrested in violation of the anticipatory bail orders; a fresh FIR may be registered on fabricated or repetitive facts; or he may be coerced or subjected to custodial pressure to extract self- incriminatory statements. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that grant of anticipatory bail in earlier cases does not confer any blanket protection or immunity upon the petitioner in respect of subsequent or ongoing investigations. It was contended that the addition of the petitioner’s brother as an accused has been made on the basis of material collected during investigation and cannot be termed as arbitrary or malafide. He further submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is purely speculative and unsupported by any material. There is no intention on the part of the investigating agency to violate the anticipatory bail orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. The police are acting strictly in accordance with law, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he may be illegally detained, arrested in violation of anticipatory bail orders, or falsely implicated in a fresh case is wholly speculative and not 4 supported by any cogent material. Mere grant of anticipatory bail in earlier cases does not confer any blanket or perpetual protection to the petitioner from lawful investigation in other matters. The contention regarding addition of the petitioner’s brother as an accused also does not warrant interference at this stage, as the investigating agency is empowered to proceed on the basis of material collected during investigation. There is nothing on record to suggest any malafide or abuse of process by the police. This Court finds no exceptional circumstance or legal infirmity requiring exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The investigating agency is bound to act in accordance with law and the orders passed by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra