1 2025:CGHC:55188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1754 of 2025 Ajay Gupta S/o Late Kranti Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o M I G- 02/2224, Housing Board, Industrial Area Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Jamul, District Durg C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav P.Shukla, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.11.2025 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. 782/2025 registered at Police Station – Jamul District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Jamul stating that in the year 2022, the present VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.13 11:58:25 +0530 2 applicant contacted him and informed that one Smt. Kiran Lohiya, co- accused in the case, owned a piece of land and that the applicant, being her power of attorney holder, offered to sell the said land to the complainant. The land bearing Khasra No. 1550/17 was shown to have been purchased by Smt. Kiran Lohiya through a registered sale deed executed in 2009 from one Vijay Kaliya. Out of the total 2400 sq. ft., the complainant agreed to purchase 1800 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.23,40,000/-, and a registered sale deed was executed on 05.04.2022 by the applicant as power of attorney holder. It is further alleged that an earlier deal in 2021 for purchase of 1500 sq. ft. land by the complainant’s mother, Smt. Pinki Agrawal, for Rs.21,15,000/- was cancelled, but Rs.7,80,000/- paid earlier was retained by the applicant and adjusted in the subsequent deal. The complainant allegedly paid ₹15,60,000/- more through cheques and cash on 22.03.2022. Later, on verification, the complainant discovered discrepancies in the Rin Pustika number mentioned in the sale deed, and inquiries from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai revealed that no land existed bearing Khasra No. 1550/17 or Plot No. 106. A demarcation report by the Revenue Inspector, Kohka showed the land to be an open area and a road in the layout. On this basis, the complainant alleged that the applicant, in connivance with co-accused Smt. Kiran Lohiya, cheated him of Rs.23,40,000/-, leading to registration of FIR No. 782/2025 at Police Station Jamul, District Durg, for the alleged offences. 3. The present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case as no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to establish his involvement. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the land situated at Village Kurud, P.H. No. 14, 3 R.N.M. Durg, Kurud, Ward No. 16, Priyadarshni Nagar, Khasra No. 1550/17, measuring 1800 sq. ft. out of the total 2400 sq. ft., for a consideration of Rs.23,40,000/- by executing a registered sale deed dated 05.04.2022, wherein possession was duly handed over after receipt of full payment and the complainant himself appeared before the Registrar and signed the sale deed. The present complaint has been filed after an unexplained delay of more than three years, as the FIR was registered only on 18.09.2025. The allegation that the land is not available on the site is false and baseless, as the said land was duly purchased by co-accused Smt. Kiran Lohiya from one Vijay Kaliya through a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2009, and her ownership was duly recorded in all revenue records including Map, Khasra, B-1, and Rin Pustika, based on which the complainant chose to purchase the land. Presently, even the complainant’s name stands recorded in the revenue records, copies of which are annexed. The difference in the Rin Pustika number in the sale deed is a bona fide clerical mistake, as the Registrar, after examining all documents and being satisfied with their genuineness, duly executed the sale deed. Moreover, the learned Court below has already granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Smt. Kiran Lohiya vide order dated 01.10.2025 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 1370/2025. Regarding the alleged antecedent, the earlier Crime No. 116/2024 under Section 420 IPC was registered against the applicant, but this Hon’ble Court granted him anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.05.2024 in M.Cr.C.A. No. 391/2024 after noting that the entire advance amount was refunded. That case pertained to land owned by the mother of the present complainant, and due to a prior dispute between the parties, the present complaint 4 has been filed as a counterblast to harass and pressurize the applicant. Hence, there exists a clear nexus between both cases, and the present FIR is nothing but a false and frivolous attempt to misuse the process of law against the applicant, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and materials on record, it appears that the dispute arises out of a bona fide land transaction and is civil in nature. The registered sale deed was duly executed, and no prima facie evidence indicates any fraudulent intent on the part of the applicant. The alleged discrepancy in the Rin Pustika number appears to be clerical, and the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than three years. Since co-accused Smt. Kiran Lohiya has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, without commenting further on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ajay Gupta, 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) 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 5 dissuade her 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 her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav