1 2025:CGHC:3715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 439 of 2025 Shashikant Shukdeve S/o Nilkanth Sukhdeve Aged About 54 Years R/o 78 Ms Capital Home, Saddu, Police Station- Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G,), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, In-Charge Of, Police Station Khamaridih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (As Per Fir And Charge Sheet) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 531/2024 registered at Police Station- Khamaridih, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.12.2024, the complainant, Vijay Sahu, lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station stating therein that the present applicant KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 executed a sale agreement dated 30.04.2019 concerning land bearing part of Khasra Nos. 437/2, 437/5, and 437/7, Patwari Halka No. 113/64, with a total area of approximately 1500 square feet, situated at Ward No. 28, Maharishi Valmiki Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.O.). It was alleged that the applicant received a total sum of 29,00,000/- for the said land ₹4,00,000/-through cheque and ₹5,00,000/- in cash at a subsequent time. The land was recorded in the name of Smt. Shanti Juneja, from whom the applicant claimed to have acquired the power of attorney to sell the property. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that no power of attorney had been granted to the applicant by Smt. Shanti Juneja. Based on this information, the concerned police registered an FIR against the applicant under Section 420 of the IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is previous antecedent of the applicant but since no recovery of unlawful things has been made in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution and he is in jail since 05.12.2024. He further submits that the delayed report, itself shows falsely implicated the applicant. The complainant lodged a written complaint on 04.12.2024. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 SC 2756) has issued specific guidelines for arrest in non-heinous offenses. Despite this, the police, without conducting a proper investigation or following due process, directly arrested the present applicant. This raises serious 3 doubts about the fairness of the process. It is also noteworthy that the complainant had previously filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking registration of an FIR against the applicant. That application was rejected and a subsequent revision petition was also dismissed as non-contested. Despite these earlier rejections, the prosecution, without due consideration, completed the investigation hastily within one day and arrested the applicant in a negligent manner. Such a rushed approach leaves significant doubt about the fairness and thoroughness of the investigation. This further supports the applicant's plea for bail. The complainant in his written complaint neither explain the delay in lodging FIR against the present applicant nor discloses all the facts regarding the disclosure of dismissed Case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Moreover, it does not disclose the earlier dismissal of the case filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This omission of key facts further highlights the lack of credibility in the prosecution's case. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the present applicant, in the said notice he has admitted the fact that an amount of Rupees 03,50,000/- has already been deposited his account. Unfortunately, due to ulterior motive he lodged case of cheating for Rupees 09,00,000/-, which clearly shows and demonstrate the fact that a false and fabricated case has been lodged by him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no incriminating evidence on record to establish any connection between the applicant and the alleged offence. Furthermore, the agreement dated 30.04.2019 explicitly mentions that the 4 complainant is bound to follow the established procedure of law. Unfortunately, in this case, the complainant has failed to adhere to such procedures, creating ambiguity and raising doubts about the legitimacy of the allegations. The present applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and since the prosecution is causing delay in the proceeding of the case and therefore, the applicant is being harassed and since according to the theory of the criminal jurisprudence the pre trial detention is always avoided and since it has always been the theory of the system of the justice, that the applicant shall be considered as innocent until proved him guilty and the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024, the trial is likely to take quite long time for conclusion therefore, he prays of grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the complainant had a prior acquaintance with the applicant. The applicant-Shashikant had introduced himself as the authorized owner of a plot of land in Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, and sold it to the complainant. The complainant paid a total of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the applicant- Shashikant in two installments. However, when the complainant discovered that Shashikant was not the actual owner of the land and had no agreement with the original owner, Smt. Shanti Juneja, he realized he had been cheated. Despite repeated demands, the applicant refused to return the money and also the fact that the applicant has two criminal antecedents for similar offence, which are 5 still pending and he is a habitual offender, as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since, 05.12.2024 and the fact that in the present case charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has two criminal antecedents for similar offence and further there is a delay in lodging the FIR for which no any explanation has been offered and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the applicant- Shashikant Shukdeve, involved in Crime No. 531/2024 registered at Police Station- Khamaridih, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 6 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal