Active participation in fraud and prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

The Applicant filed for anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 93/2026, registered under Section 420/34 of the IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur

The prosecution alleges that co-accused persons induced the complainant and another individual to pay ₹3,00,000 for government jobs as Data Entry Operators.

When the victims demanded their money back, they were referred to the Applicant, who allegedly posed as a "senior officer" and assured them of future employment to prevent them from seeking refunds.

The Applicant contended he was falsely implicated, no money was recovered from him, and the primary allegations were against the co-accused.

The State opposed the bail, citing the Applicant's active participation and a 2018 criminal antecedent under the Gambling Act.

Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of allegations of active participation in a job fraud and a prior criminal record.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor provision to Section 438 of the CrPC), which governs the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest.

Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Established judicial principles regarding the refusal of bail where an investigation is ongoing and the accused has a history of "criminal antecedents".

The Court's reasoning centered on the gravity of the offense and the Applicant's specific role in the fraudulent scheme.

Although the Applicant argued that no money was recovered from him and the trial would be prolonged, the Court found that he had "actively participated" by acting as a senior official to further the deception.

The Court emphasized that the investigation is currently at a critical stage ("still going on") and noted the Applicant's 2018 criminal record under the Gambling Act as a factor against granting discretionary relief.

By connecting the Applicant's "active participation" in the job scam with the need for an unimpeded investigation, the Court determined that the requirements for anticipatory bail were not met.

The application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, was rejected.

The Court further directed the office to provide a copy of the order to the concerned trial court for necessary information.