Allowed

Yogendra Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCRCA/1464/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for anticipatory bail. The applicant, Yogendra Dewangan, was accused of cheating by procuring Rs. 9 lakhs from the complainant and others on the false promise of securing government jobs. The court, noting the applicant had no criminal antecedents and without commenting on the merits, granted anticipatory bail on execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant to be released on personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions.

Yogendra Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

AMITA DUBEY

CGHC010337302026

2026:CGHC:40864

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY

¶7

Date: 2026.09.21 15:45:26 +0530

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶9

MCRCA No. 1464 of 2026

¶10

Yogendra Dewangan Son Of Chandraprakash Dewangan, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sirri, Chowki Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Presently Residing At Dharam Nagar, Ward No. 50, Pachpedi Naka Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Applicant

¶12

versus

¶13

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod (Police Chowki Karelibadi), District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Ms. Swarnim S. Kochar, and Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocates

¶16

For Res/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Government Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

18/09/2026

¶20

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. 132 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Police Chowki Karelibadi, Police Station Magarlod District Dhamtari, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 318(4), of B. N. S. 2023.

¶21

¶22

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Anup Kumar Sahu, lodged a report before the concerned Superintendent of Police, alleging therein that the present applicant, projecting himself as a politician and representing that he could secure a government school job, procured a total sum of Rs. 9 lakhs from the complainant and his other friends. However, neither the job has been provided nor the said amount was returned. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, FIR was registered against the applicant for the offence mentioned in paragraph 1 hereinabove.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and a false allegation has been leveled against him. He further submits that the amount transferred to the applicant’s account was towards a personal loan and was not received with respect to any alleged false promise or procurement of a government job. He also contended that he has filed the documents showing the bank transaction from the account of Mr. Lilendra Dewangan, who is the elder brother of present applicant, for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- through Phone Pay to the account of the complainant. A copy of the screen shot to that effect is filed alongwith the covering memo. He further submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that in the written report there is a specific allegation that total sum of Rs. 9 Lacs has been procured by the present applicant from Kulasth Sahu, Devesh Sahu, Pawan Kumar and complainant Anup Kumar Sahu, however, she does not dispute the

¶25

¶26

submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with bail application.

¶28

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties and further that there is no criminal antecedent registered against the present applicant without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.

¶29

Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question Crime No. Crime No. 132 of 2026, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶30

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when

¶31

required;

¶32

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶33

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶34

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

¶35

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶36

¶37

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶40

Ami

Yogendra Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases