1 2025:CGHC:28786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 921 of 2025 Sachin Kumar Jain @ Sachin Duggad S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jain Aged About 44 Years R/o 504, Marudhar Apartment, Budhapara Dhal, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Stataion House Officer Police Station Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 104/2025 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 351(2)(3), 309(4), and 61(2)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the father of the applicant is the owner of Arihant Jewellers. The complainant, Deepak Sadashiv Dhoble, operates a refinery under the name Shri Devashri Ganeshay Refineries located in Budhapara, Raipur. For several years, the applicant’s shop has been sending gold and silver to the complainant’s refinery for refining. On one such occasion, the applicant provided gold to Deepak Dhoble for refining, which the latter allegedly failed to return. Subsequently, Deepak Dhoble filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, presided over by Shri Bhupesh Kumar Basant. In his application, he alleged that in his absence, the applicant Sachin Duggad, along with Rohit Jain and Mr. Bapi Haldar, pressurized his brother Nishikant and forcefully took 977 grams and 320 milligrams of gold on 09.07.2024. The learned Magistrate allowed the application, based on which Police Station Kotwali, Raipur registered FIR No. 0104/2025 for offences under Sections 329(3), 351(2)(3), 309(4), and 61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Thereafter, the applicant filed a bail application, which was rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. The present dispute has arisen out of a business transaction between the complainant and the applicant, which is purely civil in nature but has been given a criminal color. Notably, the complainant, Deepak Dhoble, returned the gold in question at the police station and also executed a written 3 agreement to that effect. He further submits that the complainant himself is accused of misappropriating gold from other jewellers, including Aditya Soni, for which an FIR has been lodged and he is presently in jail. The present complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of about six months. He also submits that the applicant had already submitted complaints before the Sarafa Union and Police Station Kotwali regarding non-return of gold by Deepak Dhoble. The applicant is a reputed resident of Raipur, owns property, has strong family ties within Chhattisgarh, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the dispute appears to have arisen from a business transaction between the applicant and the complainant which is essentially civil in nature, and further taking into account that the complainant has already returned the gold and executed a written agreement in that regard, coupled with the admitted delay of about six months in lodging the complaint and the absence of any prior criminal record 4 of the applicant, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Sachin Kumar Jain @ Sachin Duggad, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) 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. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan