1 2025:CGHC:41257 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1238 of 2025 Kirtiraj Bharti S/o Yogesh Bharti Aged About 38 Years R/o 103, R/o IRIS 42, Green Valley, Junwani, Bhilai, P.S. Smriti Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Padmanabhpur Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14/08/2025 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.218/2025 registered at Police Station – Padmanabhpur, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.08.18 14:44:08 +0530 2 Distt. Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Archana Sahu lodged complaint with P.S. Padmanabhpur, alleging therein that she had entered into an agreement on 25.09.2024 with the present applicant for construction of house on her residential plot. The total cost of construction was agreed to be Rs. 19,85,000/-. The complainant further alleges that she had paid Rs. 6,95,000/- as an advance in installments. The applicant got the building construction and dug bore on the plot on which Rs.1,45,000/- were spent by the applicant. Thereby, the applicant has committed a fraud of Rs.5,50,000/- with the complainant. The complainant further got to know that the applicant has committed similar fraud with other persons, such as obtaining Rs. 8,74,000/- from Priyanka Dutta for construction and selling land, Rs. 1,50,000/- from Nikhil Kumar, Rs. 85,000/- from Varun Kumar Chandeshwar, Rs.1,00,000 from Chandramauli Mishra, Rs. 1,55,200 from Vijay Kumar Pal. Hence the F.I.R. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant. He would submit that as per the complainant's own version, the applicant had obtained building permission on her behalf and dug bore on the property. However, the complete fact is that 20 column have already been constructed on the said property and the dispute arose when more amount was demanded for further 3 construction since the applicant had already incurred expenses of about Rs. 7,50,000/-. He would submit that as per the F.I.R. there was a contract entered into between the parties and the complainant was well aware that suit for specific performance would fail since the applicant has substantially performed his part and she wanted to get a favourable bargain by exerting undue influence through misuse of the police machinery and escape liability of amount which has been spent by the applicant in excess of Rs. 6,95,000/-. He would submit that above agreement was entered for construction only but in capacity of a broker, however, the opposite parties did not want to go ahead with the registry of land and demanded refund of advance for construction as per the agreed terms and conditions, however, since the applicant did not have sufficient funds to repay them, they instigated the present complainant to lodge a complaint. He would submit that the applicant is aged about 38 years and belongs to renowned family and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation in the present case and there is unexplained delay in filing F.I.R. by the complainant, that is almost delay of 10 months. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, considering the fact that dispute appears to be purely of civil nature, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court finds it appropriate 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 –Kirtiraj Bharti, 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 5 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 gouri