Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Raju Ratre – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRCA No. 1381 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal
For the Respondents: Ms. Vaishali Mahilong
The court held that prior criminal antecedents justify the denial of anticipatory bail in serious fraud allegations.
Headnote:This judgment addresses an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The case involves allegations of fraud amounting to Rs. 42,10,000/- by the applicant and co-accused, using fake job appointment letters. The court finds the applicant's criminal background relevant to deny bail, declaring him a habitual offender. The primary issue framed was whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The court reasoned that the applicant's previous criminal antecedents and the serious nature of allegations justified the denial of bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for anticipatory bail in connection with serious allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claims of false implication by the applicant. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's examination of evidence and criminal history. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. denial of bail based on applicant's history and seriousness of charges. (Para 7) |
Order On Board
11.09.2025
1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 355/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections
318(4), 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS.
2. As per prosecution case that the complainant has made complaint to the concerned police station alleging inter-alia is that the accused persons have obtained amount of Rs. 42,10,000/- from the complainant and other in the name of teaching in the government school of the Re- India Skill Welfare Foundation institution but the same has not been provided and institution has closed since 01.07.2025. Based upon the such complaint of the complainant, police has registered FIR against the accused person and applicant for the offence u/s 318(4), 3(5), 338, 32, 340(2) of 336(3) Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.
3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime on the basis of a false and fabricated complaint made by the complainant. He has neither committed the alleged offence nor been involved in any manner but has been wrongly arrested merely on suspicion. The applicant has not obtained any money from the complainant for teaching in a government school, nor has he committed any fraud, cheating, or derived any benefit from the alleged amount. The allegations are baseless, unproved, and made only on suspicion, without any credible evidence. Furthermore, there are no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 338, 332, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita in the prosecution story, which clearly establishes that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature, and therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the case diary, it is revealed that the applicant/accused Raju Patre, along with the co-accused, has allegedly committed fraud of about Rs. 42,10,000/- by issuing fake government job appointment letters to the victims for wrongful gain. It further appears that the applicant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is found to be a habitual offender.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Raju Ratre, involved in Crime No. 355/2025, registered at Police Station – Civil Line Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS, is rejected Sd/-
