NARAYAN PRASAD TIWARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010386002026 2026:CGHC:46323
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1672 of 2026
1 - Narayan Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Labho Prasad Tiwari Aged About 42
Years (Now 47 Years) R/o Village Ghothala Bade, Taluka Sarangarh
(Wrongly written as Sasrangarh), District Raigarh (Now Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh) Chhattisgarh
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Now Sarangarh-Bilaigarh)
Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. GA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
02.11.2026
1. This is the second anticipatory bail application under Section 482
of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant, who is apprehending
his arrest in connection with Crime No.137/2022, registered at
Digitally
signed
by R
NIRALA
Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for commission
of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419 & 34 of IPC.

2
2. The first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRCA
No.543/2022 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order
dated 13.07.2022.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant along with co-
accused persons namely Naresh Jaiswal and Narendra
Dewangan took Rs.7 lakh in three installments from complainant
Seetaram Sahu on false promise of providing job to Shubham
Sahu, son of the complainant, but they could not provide him job.
The applicant and other co-accused persons have also taken
huge amount from Deendayal Patel, Shivanand Sahu and
Awadhram Patel and other persons, in total 22 persons on the
promise of providing them/their relatives job in the Railway
Department. It is further alleged that the accused persons have
not only opened fake office rather they have also created forged
website in the name and style of ‘www.railwayaapada.org’. They
have also called about 300 persons for interview and demanded
Rs.1,50,000/- from them. They have also obtained huge amount
from various aspirants, but they could not provide them job. The
Railway Department has also stated that the alleged website is
forged and office of accused persons is also fake. Hence, FIR
was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons
for the offence under Sections 419, 420 & 34 of IPC. After
investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused
persons i.e. Narendra Dewangan @ Pankaj Sharma and Ritesh
Sharma @ Nitesh Sharma showing the present applicant to be

3
absconder.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
himself is the victim, as other accused persons obtained money
from him also in the name of providing him job. He further
submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the
instant case, as even after getting money from the applicant by
the accused Narendra Kumar Dewangan @ Pankaj Sharma, he
could not provide him job and instead gave him cheque worth
Rs.10 Lakhs for refund of the money, but the same has been
bounced, therefore, the applicant filed application under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused
Narendra Kumar Dewangan @ Pankaj Sharma. Hence, the
applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that the applicant is the prime accused
and the FIR was lodged by the complainant in the name of the
applicant. He further submits that the complainants Sitaram Sahu
and Awadh Ram Patel have categorically stated in their
report/statement that the applicant had received huge amount
from them to provide them/their relatives job in the Railway
Department and no new ground has been raised by the applicant
to entertain his repeat bail application. Hence the repeat
anticipatory bail application may be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the case diary.

4
7. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 and since thereafter
neither any change in the circumstances occurred nor any new
ground has been raised by the applicant to grant him anticipatory
bail in the second round of litigation. Further, the applicant has
not only been named in the FIR by the complainants Sitaram
Sahu and Awadh Ram Patel, but they have also stated in their
police statement about the active participation of the applicant in
the crime in question. The facts demonstrate that the accused
persons have not only opened website in the false and fabricated
name of Railway, rather they have also opened fake office and
called huge number of aspirants for interview. Thus, having
considered the above said aspects of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Judge
Nirala