2026:CGHC:8101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 243 of 2026 Anirudh Tamrakar S/o Shri Pramod Tamrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Akash Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ravi Prakash Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 116, Street No. 10, Nawahar Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant)

... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

SISTLA NEELIMA

VISHNU PRIYA

Date: 2026.02.13

13.02.2026

1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.37/2026 registered at Police Station – Patan, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 3(5), 318 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant Akash Sharma, filed a complaint under Section 175(4) of the BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, stating that he and the present Applicant were childhood friends residing in the same locality. It was alleged that in the year 2021, the Applicant, citing financial difficulties due to non-payment of salary, sought financial assistance for opening a protein supplement shop in the name of his wife, as he was a government servant. The complainant allegedly assisted in establishing the shop, supplied protein supplements and advanced various amounts of money, including Rs.5 lakhs through bank transfer, Rs.1 lakh in cash and a further Rs.6 lakhs as loan in 2022. It is further alleged that thereafter the Applicant and his wife avoided repayment, threatened the complainant, and caused wrongful loss amounting to about Rs.27 lakhs. On the basis of the said complaint, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Applicant.

Hence, this application.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there was business relation between the Applicant and the complainant due to which, a dispute arose between them. The Applicant has initially lodged FIR against the complainant under Section 420 IPC bearing Crime No.201/2025 wherein, the complainant has already been enlarged on bail. He further submits that after the said complaint, the complainant has filed a second complaint before the JMFC, Patan under Section 175(4) of BNSS, therefore, considering all these aspects, the Applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant and submits that the existence of a prior dispute or earlier FIR between the parties does not render the present complaint false at this stage. Considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail and therefore, the application may be rejected.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available in the case diary, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties appears to have arisen out of a business transaction. It is also noted that the Applicant had earlier lodged an FIR against the complainant and that thereafter the present complaint has been filed before the learned JMFC, Patan under Section 175(4) of the BNSS. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering that custodial interrogation of the Applicant does not appear necessary at this stage, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the even