1 2026:CGHC:26626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 970 of 2026 Taruna Nishad D/o Suklal Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Manjhapara, Ward No. 12, Bodeli, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.07.01 16:27:13 +0530 2

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the applicant along with co-accused Kailash Sahu, induced him to provide job in the Police Department and could secure his appointment as a Constable for which Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded. Acting on such representation, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.1,76,980/- through PhonePe to the bank accounts/mobile numbers of the applicant and the co-accused on different dates. Despite receiving the money, neither the promised job was arranged nor the amount was refunded. It is further alleged that the accused persons similarly cheated other individuals on the pretext of providing government jobs. Accordingly, an FIR was registered under Sections 111(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the matter is presently under investigation. Hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged transactions pertain to the period between January, 2024 and January, 2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 12.06.2026, after an unexplained and inordinate delay. The prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such delay, which casts a serious doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the prosecution story. He also submits that the applicant has already returned an amount of approximately Rs.70,500/- to the complainant out of the alleged amount, which reflects her bona fide conduct and absence of any 3 dishonest intention from the very inception. The dispute, if any, is essentially financial in nature and does not warrant custodial interrogation. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities. It is alleged that, despite receiving the amount through PhonePe, neither the promised job was provided nor the money was returned, thereby cheated the complainant and other similarly placed persons, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant that the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities, and further considering that the applicant has cheated the complainant and other similarly placed 4 persons on the pretext of providing Government Job, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant -Taruna Nishad, involved in Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve

1 2026:CGHC:26626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 970 of 2026 Taruna Nishad D/o Suklal Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Manjhapara, Ward No. 12, Bodeli, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.07.01 16:27:13 +0530 2

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the applicant along with co-accused Kailash Sahu, induced him to provide job in the Police Department and could secure his appointment as a Constable for which Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded. Acting on such representation, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.1,76,980/- through PhonePe to the bank accounts/mobile numbers of the applicant and the co-accused on different dates. Despite receiving the money, neither the promised job was arranged nor the amount was refunded. It is further alleged that the accused persons similarly cheated other individuals on the pretext of providing government jobs. Accordingly, an FIR was registered under Sections 111(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the matter is presently under investigation. Hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged transactions pertain to the period between January, 2024 and January, 2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 12.06.2026, after an unexplained and inordinate delay. The prosecution has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for such delay, which casts a serious doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the prosecution story. He also submits that the applicant has already returned an amount of approximately Rs.70,500/- to the complainant out of the alleged amount, which reflects her bona fide conduct and absence of any 3 dishonest intention from the very inception. The dispute, if any, is essentially financial in nature and does not warrant custodial interrogation. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities. It is alleged that, despite receiving the amount through PhonePe, neither the promised job was provided nor the money was returned, thereby cheated the complainant and other similarly placed persons, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant that the applicant allegedly in connivance with the co-accused, induced the complainant to part with Rs.1,76,980/- on the false promise of securing his appointment as a Constable in the Police Department by claiming to have influence with the authorities, and further considering that the applicant has cheated the complainant and other similarly placed 4 persons on the pretext of providing Government Job, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant -Taruna Nishad, involved in Crime No.124/2026, registered at Police Station Charama, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111(2) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve