1 2025:CGHC:57796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1863 of 2025 Sherasiya Ashish Kumar Vitthal Bhai S/o Sherasiya Vitthal Bhai Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Chitrakut Street No.5, Opposite Of S.P.K. School Shanala Road Morvi, Rajkot, Gujrat, 363641 (As Per Correct Details) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 420 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant, namely M. Ganesh Reddy, lodged a police complaint on 17.02.2025 alleging that the applicant had taken his JCB Poklane machine on a contract basis and thereafter failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.68,02,294/-, along with the interest accrued for its use, thereby cheating him. Acting upon the written report of the complainant, Police Station Civil Lines registered Crime No. 79/2025 against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, as he has not committed any offence alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the dispute between the complainant and the applicant arises purely out of a business/commercial transaction, and the complainant has lodged a false and fabricated complaint only with the intention of extracting an amount higher than the actual outstanding dues. The learned trial Court also failed to take into account that a Rental Agreement existed between the complainant’s company, Jinkushal Industries Private Limited, and the applicant’s firm, Mayura Earth Movers, for pipeline work at the SMS Limited site, wherein the applicant was merely a service provider. There is also an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, particularly when, as per the prosecution case itself, part 3 payments were admittedly made by the applicant. Further, the FIR pertains to the rental offer/agreement dated 07.06.2021, thereby casting serious doubt on the bona fides of the complainant. He also submits the rental offer dated 07.06.2021 annexed with the application, clearly contains an arbitration clause (Clause 7) stipulating that any dispute arising out of the contract shall be decided by a sole arbitrator at Raipur, which further reinforces that the dispute is civil. He lastly submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents registered against him. It is therefore submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted in the present case and the applicant has no culpable involvement and hence he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose a clear prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 IPC. It is contended that the applicant had taken the complainant’s JCB Poklane machine on a contract basis and failed to make payment of substantial outstanding dues, causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It is further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary for proper recovery and verification of records. Therefore, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations which prima facie indicate a commercial transaction between the parties, and the existence of documentary material such as the rental agreement showing an ongoing business relationship, this Court finds that the dispute appears to be predominantly civil in nature. It is also noted that the investigation can be carried out without the necessity of custodial interrogation. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. In view of these factors, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Sherasiya Ashish Kumar Vitthal Bhai, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He 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) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 5 (d) The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil