YADUNATH PATEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010421482026 2026:CGHC:46774
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1794 of 2026
Yadunath Patel S/o Padumram Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
Bade Devgaon, P.S. And Tahsil - Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
(As Per Correct Details)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Ms. Sharmila Sanghai, Addl. A.G. with Ms.
Prachi Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
04/11/2026
1. Applicant has preferred First bail 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.

2
354/2017 registered at Police Station- Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)
for offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Kartikram
Yadav filed a written complaint with the Inspector General of
Police, Bilaspur Range, stating that his mother had taken policy of
Life Insurance Corporation of India vide policy number 383054930
in his name, and he had been paying premiums for nine years.
Upon his mother's death, he stopped paying premiums. When he
contacted the agent to withdraw the policy amount, he began to
procrastinate. Upon filing a complaint at the police station, he
came to know that the insurance policy amount had been
withdrawn, but the complainant had never received the insurance
amount. The total amount withdrawn by the applicant was
Rs.6,650/-.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent, not involved in alleged commission of offences and he
has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He also
submits that applicant has been implicated in the crime only
because he being the LIC Agent has obtained the policy in the
name of complainant purchased by the mother. When the
complainant went to the LIC office he was intimated that the
amount has already been withdrawn and thereafter the report was
lodged in the year 2017. He also pointed out that as applicant has
not committed any offence and till date no material has been
collected by the police, so as to show prima facei involvement of

3
the applicant in the offence. As there is no material before the
police, the applicant was not being interrogated or any steps have
been taken to arrest him. When police again came to applicant for
collecting the information etc., the applicant has filed bail
application which came to be rejected by the impugned order.
There is no other criminal antecedent registered against the
applicant, hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned
counsel for applicant and would submit that according to the
complaint, the allegation is against the applicant that he has
withdrawn the amount. Upon putting the query learned State
counsel submits that there are no documents available on record
to suggest as to who had acted and instrumental in transferring
the amount of the policy purchased in the name of complainant.
She also submits that from the case diary it is appearing that the
applicant when tried to contact was not found.
5. At this stage, counsel for the applicant would submit that an
amount of Rs.6,650/- towards the policy has been returned by co-
accused Ram Kumar Patel.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also
perused the documents enclosed along with bail application.
7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties,
further considering that there are no documents available in case
diary to suggest as to who had acted and instrumental in

4
transferring the amount of the policy purchased in the name of
complainant and further that there is no other criminal antecedent
registered against the applicant, without commenting anything on
merits, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.
8. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforementioned
crime number, 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:
(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;
and
(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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
Ravi Mandavi