1 2025:CGHC:45643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1364 of 2025 1 - Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Bilash Rai Agrawal Aged About 63 Years (Aadhar No. 444078505428) R/o Ravi Shankar Shukla Market, Ward19, In Front Of Townhall, Raigarh Pin – 496001 2 - Vaibhav Jindal S/o Late Natwar Agrawal Aged About 30 Years (Wrongly Written As Aaibhav Jindel In Impugned Order) (Aadhar No. 890492716224) R/o Gulmohar Colony, Beladula Road Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh (Address Correct Mentioned ) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.09.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 712/2023 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Raigarh District – Raigarh VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 14:25:29 +0530 2 (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRCA No. 272 of 2025, was dismissed as withdrawn on technical grounds vide order dated 25.02.2025, with liberty to file afresh. 3. The case of prosecution is that the applicants entered into an agreement dated 16.01.2023 with the complainant for sale of land, for which advance money was paid. When the complainant refused to accept notice dated 03.06.2023, the applicants published a notice on 16.06.2023 calling upon him to execute the sale deed within 15 days, failing which the agreement and advance would be treated as null. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 21.06.2023 alleging that the sale copy did not reflect the correct area as per boundaries and demanded completion of registration. The applicants, vide notice dated 30.06.2023, denied all allegations and asserted readiness to execute the sale deed. Further exchange of notices ensued on 05.07.2023 and 11.07.2023, wherein the complainant reiterated allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, while the applicants denied the same and maintained that the complainant was deliberately delaying execution of the sale deed despite several opportunities. Subsequently, on the basis of a written complaint, Crime No. 712/2023 under Sections 420 and 34 IPC was registered at P.S. City Kotwali against the applicants, and their anticipatory bail application came to be rejected by the Court below vide order dated 08.11.2023. 3 4. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated, as no offence, much less under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, is made out against them. The dispute arises purely out of a written agreement for sale of land, wherein the complainant himself failed to abide by the terms by delaying registration despite being informed that the necessary documents were ready, thereby breaching the contract. The matter is essentially civil in nature, but the complainant has given it criminal color by lodging FIR No. 712/2023. The applicants are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title, are ready to furnish adequate security, and shall abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, hence the present case is fit for exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that, in this case, the charge- sheet has already been filed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended in the present anticipatory bail application. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Pawan Kumar Agrawal & Vaibhav Jindal on executing a personal bond and one surety each in 4 the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their 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) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav