1 2025:CGHC:23589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 823 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 Through Its Station House In-Charge, P.S. Deendayal Nagar Police Station, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For Res/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.06.2025 1. This second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth, 'BNSS') has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 151/2025 registered at Police Station – Deendayal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 420,467,468,471,34 &120-B of Indian Penal Code. His first application for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 603 /2025. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant alongwith other officials issued a public auction with regard to sale of two open lands bearing Khasra Nos. 364/5 and 364/21 situated at Paltwari Halka No. 104, Shubh Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Raipur with a total area of 1.850 sq.ft, in which, the complainant participated and being a highest bidder, he was declared successful bidder. A bid confirmation letter was accordingly issued in his favour and in pursuance thereof, he deposited 25% of the total bid amount, i.e. Rs.5,52,000/- (as per FIR). However, upon verification, it was found that the aforesaid land stood in the name of a different person in the revenue records. It is alleged that the bank officials, despite being aware of the fact that the land was non-existent, proceeded to include the said property in the auction. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the Magistrate, Raipur, who, in turn, directed the registration of FIR against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question, as there is no material available on record to connect the applicant with the crime in question. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, no case is made out against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B of the IPC. 3 He further submits that dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and the FIR has been maliciously lodged with the sole extent to exert undue pressure upon the bank and its officials. He further submits that sale / auction notification have been issued solely for the purpose of recovering the bank's dues and the 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 has no criminal antecedents and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, therefore, he prays the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non -applicant/State, opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the alleged lands bearing Khasra Nos. 364/5 and 364/21 situated at Paltwari Halka No. 104, Shubh Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Raipur with a total area of 1.850 sq.ft, for which the auction was made stood in the name of some other person, upon which the FIR was registered against the applicant and the fact that allegation made against the applicant appears to be of serious in nature, which needs to be investigated thoroughly / properly and also considering the fact that there is no change in circumstances to entertain this second application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4 7. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail of the applicant – Vinay Soni, involved in Crime No. 151/2025, registered at police station Deendayal Nagar, Raipur for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is rejected. Sd/ Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.06.19 11:53:16 +0530