ABHISHEK CHAURASIYA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010426972026 2026:CGHC:46027
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1802 of 2026
Dhruw Kumar Sahu S/o Narpat Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Patharri­
para Ward No. 12, (C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba In Front Of East N.C.-65), Police
Station Rampur, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant


versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Urga, Distt.
Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent

MCRCA No. 1729 of 2026
Abhishek Chaurasiya S/o Rajkishore Chaurasiya Aged About 34 Years R/o
Qr.No.Mig-1-67, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
... Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Urga, District Korba - (C.G.)
...Respondent
For respective Applicants : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Vikas Kumar
Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
30/10/2026
1. Since, both the cases are arising out of same crime number
therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

2
2. Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory
bail as they apprehends their arrest in connection with Crime No.
536/2026 registered at Police Station - Urga, District Korba (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) & 3(5) of
the BNS.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.09.2026, the
complainant, namely Ashish Kumar, who was posted as District
Coordinator (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana–Gramin), Zila
Panchayat, Korba, lodged a written complaint at Police Station
Urga, alleging that, on the basis of a complaint made by
Shakuntala Kaiwartya, a Member of Janpad Panchayat, Korba,
regarding misappropriation of government funds sanctioned for the
construction of houses under the scheme at Gram Panchayat
Tilkeja, a committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry. During
the enquiry, it was found that funds had been sanctioned and
released in favour of 48 beneficiaries, some of whom were already
deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were registered against the
accused persons vide Crime No. 536/2026.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. He
further submits that applicant Dhruv Kumar Sahu is working as a
Data Entry Operator in Janpad Panchayat, Korba, whereas
applicant Abhishek Chaurasia is working as a Technical Assistant,

3
whose duties are limited to field visits and verification of the status
of construction under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.
5. Learned counsel for the respective applicants further submits that,
even if any offence has been committed, the applicants have no
role in its commission. They are neither responsible for receiving
application forms nor are they authorised to disburse the funds
sanctioned under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. It is further
submitted that applicant Dhruv Kumar Sahu merely entered the
particulars of the applications forwarded to him. The authority to
disburse the sanctioned amount under the Pradhan Mantri Awas
Yojana rests with the Samanvay Head at the Block Level (PMAY-
G). Applicant, Abhishek, works in the field and has submitted
report of the stage of construction. Only one installment was
disbursed. Therefore, the applicants have no direct role in the
alleged misappropriation of funds.
6. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicants and submits that the applicants are
employees of the office to which funds under the Pradhan Mantri
Awas Yojana were sanctioned. However, on being specifically
asked whether the applicants had received the application forms
or disbursed the sanctioned amount, she fairly submits that there
is no mention in the material available in the case diary to show
that the applicants had either received the application forms or
disbursed the sanctioned amount.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties,

4
without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow
these anticipatory bail applications.
9. Accordingly, applications are allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of applicants in connection with the crime in
question (536/2026), they shall be released on anticipatory bail by
the Officer arresting them on their executing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicants shall also
abide by the following conditions:
(i) that the applicants shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when
required;
(ii) that the applicants 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) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;
(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal
of the trial.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
JUDGE
vaibhav