MCRCA/1686/2026 of HARSHDEEP RAM JADI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 November 2026

1. Harshdeep Ram Jadi S/o Lodhan Ram Jadi, Aged About 31 Years All R/o Swarnim Era Colony House No. 10, Street 12, Bahtarai District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. At Permanent Resident Of Village Chirwari, Police Station Aara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

2. Lodhan Ram Jadi S/o Charka, Ram Jadi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Swarnim Era Colony House No. 10, Street 12, Bahtarai District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. At Permanent Resident Of Village Chirwari, Police Station Aara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

3. Smt Rajo Jadi W/o Lodhan Ram Jadi, Aged About 50 Years R/o Swarnim Era Colony House No. 10, Street 12, Bahtarai District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. At Permanent Resident Of Village Chirwari, Police Station Aara, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

... Applicants versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Manikpur, Government Advocate For Objector : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 05/11/2026

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.510/2026 registered at Police Station Koni, Bilaspur (CG) under Sections 318 (4) and 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged written complaint alleging that the applicants showing forged biodata of applicant No.1 got solemnized marriage of applicant No.1 with the complainant and thereafter they cheated the complainant of Rs.4,96,000/- and the complainant’s father of Rs.1,80,000/-. Based on aforementioned allegation, the instant crime is registered and the police are in search of applicant.

3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that though he is not admitting the allegation levelled against the applicants, however, the applicants have paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant against Rs.6,76,000/-. Hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for applicants and submits that there is allegation against the applicants that they cheated the complainant and her father of total Rs.6,76,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/objector does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for applicants that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been transferred to the bank account of the complainant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and nature of allegations without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with aforementioned crime, they shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer concerned. The applicants shall also abide by following conditions :-

(i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

(ii) they 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) they shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

iv) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of trial. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-