1 2026:CGHC:11700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 378 of 2026 Mahendra Kumar Manhar S/o Gend Lal Manhar Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 7, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.99/2026 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.12 11:27:11 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the present case has been registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Shashank Sheikh Shukla, Tahsildar, Takhatpur, before Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. It is alleged that in reference to the order of the Collector, Bilaspur dated 16.05.2025, an enquiry was directed regarding disbursement of financial assistance under the Social Security Scheme of the State Government. During the enquiry conducted by the office of Tahsil Takhatpur, a team comprising the concerned Tahsildar, the Station House Officer of Police Station Takhatpur and the Block Medical Officer was constituted to examine the related cases. During the course of enquiry it was noticed that in Merg Intimation No. 32/2023 recorded at Police Station Takhatpur, the name of the deceased was mentioned as Shobha Ram Kaushik and the death was recorded as suicidal, whereas the name of deceased Purshottam Shrivas was not mentioned, thereby creating suspicion regarding the actual cause of death. It was further revealed that the applicant Urvashi Shrivas, wife of late Purshottam Shrivas and resident of village Chanadongri, had filed an application before the Tahsildar Court in E-Court Revenue Case No. 202305070800039 on the basis of Merg Intimation No. 23/2022. During enquiry, statements of witnesses including Dukhiram Shrivas, father of the applicant, and other family members were recorded, which raised doubts regarding the alleged cause of death by snake bite. Upon verification of the documents including the merg intimation, map, panchanama and other records, it was alleged that the applicant Urvashi Shrivas, in connivance with other persons, obtained a government assistance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- by using false and fabricated documents. On the basis of the said complaint and enquiry, 3 Police Station Takhatpur registered Crime No. 99/2026 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any of the offences alleged against him. The applicant has no role in the commission of the alleged crime and his name is not mentioned in the FIR. No article or incriminating material has been seized from his possession during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant has not derived any benefit from the alleged transaction and being merely a neighbour, he had only advised or informed the concerned person about the Government scheme without any intention to obtain any benefit. The allegations against the applicant are based only on suspicion and due to personal enmity the complainant has falsely implicated him in the present case. The essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against the present applicant. The applicant is about 35 years of age and is the sole person responsible for maintaining his family. In these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider the facts of the case and grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mahendra Kumar Manhar , on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav