MCRCA/1503/2026 of DOMAR SINGH TANDI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 10 September 2026

1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 97/2026 registered at Police Station – Tendukona District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complaint was filed by Rakesh Chakradhari alleging that the applicant had collected money from him on the promise of providing him a job in a Government liquor shop. However, when the job was not provided and the complainant requested the applicant to return money, the applicant refused to do so. Based on the said complaint, a crime was registered against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the work of providing jobs in the area was being carried out by Tarvinder Bhatiya and his associates. It is submitted that Tarvinder Bhatiya had received the money from the applicant, and after receiving the amount from the applicant, the same was transferred to the bank accounts of Tarvinder Bhatiya's son and wife. Screenshots/documents evidencing the said transfers have been placed on record. It is further submitted that, after receipt of the written report, the police called the applicant and recorded his statement, wherein he clearly disclosed the manner in which the amount was received and transferred to Tarvinder Bhatiya. However, despite the same, Tarvinder Bhatiya has not been made an accused in the present case.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there is a specific allegation against the applicant in the case diary. He further submits that the documents on record show the transfer of the amount to the account of the present applicant, Domar Singh Tandi. He further contends that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was paid in cash by Bhusan Chakradhari to the applicant. Therefore, there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. He read the statement of applicant recorded by police.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. This Court posed question to learned State counsel as to whether the statement of the applicant was available on record. He read the same.

7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, statement of applicant read over, I am not inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, is rejected. Sd/- Sd (Parth Prateem Sahu)

JUDGE vaibhav