BIPIN RATURI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010398222026 2026:CGHC:45358
NAFR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.10.28
11:00:50 +0530
MCRCA No. 1677 of 2026
Bipin Raturi Son Of Dr. Govind Ballabh Raturi, Aged About 49 Years Resident Of
House No. 579, Pragati Vihar, Dharampur, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) (Recorded In
The F I R As Vipin Ratodi) ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar,
District Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr.
Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent-State
:
Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G.
For Objector
:
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
27/10/2026
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. 0317/2026
registered at Police Station - Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4) 317(4), 111(2) & 3(5) of the
BNS.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, who deals in coal
and steel through his firm, SJM Minerals, was introduced by the
applicant with one Anil Rai, who was represented as a reputed

2
businessman dealing in the supply of steel billets. Thereafter, the
complainant and Anil Rai formed a partnership firm, namely, Blackrock
Irontrade LLP. Pursuant to a purchase order issued by Bolster Tradelink
Pvt. Ltd., Indore, the complainant supplied 2,437.810 MT of steel billets,
valued at Rs. 12,63,72,632/-, to Sanjay Iron, Bhavnagar, and Sun Steel,
Mehsana, between 08.06.2026 and 23.06.2026. Out of the aforesaid
amount, the complainant received Rs. 7,36,18,158/-, leaving a balance
of Rs. 5,27,54,474/- unpaid. Thereafter, Anil Rai allegedly stopped
responding to the complainant's calls. Referring to criminal cases
registered against Anil Rai and Praveen Rai in other States, the
complainant suspected that the applicant, Anil Rai, Praveen Rai, Sunil
Rai and others had cheated him in a planned manner. The delay in
lodging the FIR was attributed to the assurance given regarding the
return of the outstanding amount.
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 only allegation against the applicant is that he introduced the
complainant to the co-accused, namely, Anil Rai, Praveen Rai and Sunil
Rai, who were associated with the company operating in the name and
style of Bolster Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. He contends that, after introducing the
parties, the applicant had no further role in the alleged transaction. The
complainant supplied goods to Bolster Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. against a
purchase order and received a substantial amount towards the value of
the goods supplied. It is, therefore, contended that the dispute arises out
of a business transaction involving an outstanding amount does not
constitute a criminal act on the part of the applicant. He further submits
that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and, therefore, prays that
he be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

3
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant and submits that, as per allegations, applicant
introduced the complainant to the persons associated with Bolster
Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. and also arranged a meeting at Bilaspur, which the
applicant attended. He further submits that, pursuant to the agreement
between the complainant and the co-accused persons, the complainant
supplied steel billets worth approximately Rs. 12 crore, out of which the
co-accused persons paid approximately Rs. 7 crore. He contends that,
when the remaining amount was not paid, complainant requested the
applicant to intervene and mediate between the parties; however, the
applicant took no steps in this regard.
5. Learned counsel for the objector also makes submissions similar to
those made by learned State Counsel.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. From the facts and allegations, as submitted by learned State Counsel
and learned counsel for the complainant, it appears that, pursuant to the
meeting arranged by the applicant, the complainant supplied goods
worth approximately Rs.12 crore to the co-accused persons, out of
which approximately Rs.7 crore has been paid, while the remaining
amount has not been paid.
8. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of the allegations, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties,
nature of the transactions between the complainant and the co-accused
persons, and the role attributed to the applicant in the complaint, without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow
this anticipatory bail application.
9. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of
arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (0317/2026),

4
he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on
his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.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:
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when
required;
(ii) that the applicant 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 applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;
(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.
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