1 2025:CGHC:19752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 603 of 2025 Vinay Soni S/o Shri Ganpat Prasad Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o LIG - 645 Housing Board Colony Sejbahar, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Though Its Station House In - Charge, P.S. Deendayal Nagar Police Station Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Ritesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. For objector : Shri Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 30/04/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.151/2025, registered at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.05.01 17:50:52 +0530 2 (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 34 & 120B of I.P.C. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, along with other officers, collectively issued a public auction notice for the sale of open land bearing Khasra Nos. 364/5 and 364/21. The complainant participated in the said auction and, being the highest bidder, was declared the successful bidder. A bid confirmation letter was accordingly issued in his favour, and he deposited 25% of the total bid amount, i.e., ₹5,52,000 (as per the FIR). Thereafter, upon inquiring into the ownership of the said land, the complainant discovered that the land stood in the name of a different person in the revenue records. Consequently, he lodged a police complaint, which was initially registered under Section 174 of the BNSS, and a FENA was issued, concluding that the matter pertained to the SARFAESI Act and was of a civil nature. Despite this, the complainant subsequently filed an application/private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate, Raipur who then directed the registration of an FIR against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person, never been convicted in any criminal case and has been implicated in false case. He would submit that from the entire prosecution case no case is made out for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 & 120B of the IPC only baseless allegation has been made, no evidence has been collected against the applicant. He would further submit that dispute between the parties is 3 is purely a civil dispute and the FIR has been maliciously lodged with the sole intent to exert undue pressure upon the bank and its officials. He would submit that the sale/auction notifications were issued solely for the purpose of recovering the bank's dues, and all recovery proceedings were conducted strictly under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. As such, in light of the bar imposed under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, initiation of any civil or criminal proceedings in respect of actions taken in good faith under this Act is expressly prohibited. He would further submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and investigation and trial may take quite some time for conclusion, therefore, he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the objector vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the land for which the auction was made stood in the name of some other person, upon which the FIR was registered against the applicant, allegation made against the applicant appears to be of serious nature which needs to be investigated properly, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Vinay Soni, involved in Crime No.151/2025, registered at Police Station 4 Deendayal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 34 & 120B of I.P.C is rejected. Sd/-Sd S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri