1 2025:CGHC:55608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1790 of 2025 Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o Datta Colony Vill, Namnakala, PS Ghandhinagar Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Ghandhi Nagar Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 14.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 327/2025, registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District – Ambikapur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. The prosecution's story is that the complainant, Smt. Indu Singh, has alleged that between the years 2017 and 2022, various amounts were transferred by her to the applicant, Nikunj Gupta, and his associates, purportedly for the purchase of a parcel of land situated at Ambikapur. It ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.17 15:23:46 +0530 2 is alleged that the complainant was introduced to the applicant through certain mutual acquaintances and, upon his assurance that he could assist in arranging and registering a piece of land in her favour, several monetary transactions took place through cheques, RTGS transfers, and cash deposits in di:erent installments. As per the FIR, the complainant has stated that a total sum of approximately Rs. 78,97,000/- was given to the applicant over a period of nearly @ve years. The payments are reAected in multiple tranches, such as Rs. 3,00,000/- on 04.10.2017, Rs. 50,000/- on 16.02.2018, Rs. 1,25,000/- on 11.09.2018, Rs. 40,000/- on 24.12.2018, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.03.2019, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.08.2019, Rs. 25,00,000/- on 31.08.2019, Rs. 40,000/- on 04.09.2019, Rs. 2,45,000/- on 25.04.2022, etc. The complainant has further alleged that despite repeated assurances, the land was never registered in her favour, and that the applicant and others have misappropriated the said money, thereby committing cheating and criminal breach of trust. Thus, based on the complaint, o:ences under Sections 420, 406, and Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC were registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the allegations are false, baseless, and grossly exaggerated. The transactions mentioned were either (a) friendly loans, (b) joint investments for a proposed real estate venture, or (c) payments routed through the applicant on behalf of other parties, none of which constitute a criminal o:ence. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, arising out of the failure of a proposed agreement or investment understanding, which the complainant has sought to give a criminal colour in order to exert undue pressure upon the applicant. He submits that the complainant, in her initial complaint submitted to Police Station Gandhinagar, alleged that she had been cheated of an amount of 3 Rs. 42,66,000/-. However, in the subsequently registered FIR, the alleged amount was arbitrarily increased to Rs. 78,97,000/-. The applicant respectfully submits that he has received some amount from the complainant, but not the entire amount as claimed. It is further submitted that the amount received was transferred to the applicant’s account for a real estate investment, and the applicant is ready and willing to return the same. He further submits that the FIR itself indicates that most of the alleged transactions took place between 2017 and 2020, whereas the FIR was lodged much later, after an inordinate delay of several years, clearly demonstrating afterthought and mala @de intent. He submits that the applicant apprehends arrest solely on the basis of exaggerated and one-sided allegations, without any substantiating documentary proof of deceitful intent at the inception of the transaction. The entire case appears to be a civil dispute relating to a land transaction which has been given a criminal colour. Even the co-accused had not defrauded the complainant; rather, it was a genuine transaction, and any misunderstanding arose due to conAicting claims over the land, not due to any criminal intent. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present applicant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature, which shows that he is a habitual o:ender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the o:ence, the material on record, and upon perusal of the case diary, it appears that the present applicant 4 is involved in o:ences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Furthermore, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of a similar nature, indicating that he is a habitual o:ender. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Nikunj Gupta, involved in Crime No. 327/2025, registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District – Ambikapur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek