1 2025:CGHC:58432 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1886 of 2025 Vikas Kumar Mishra S/o Prem Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No.46, Gahira Guru Ward, Darripara, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station - Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar) (Wrongly Mentioned As Kotwali Ambikapur In The Order - Sheet) District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 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. 423/2025 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar) District - Sarguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 338, 339 & 61(2)(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.03 12:05:24 +0530 2 2. The prosecution in brief is that the first information report of the incident has been lodged by one Smt. Alka Singh in respect of the incident alleged to have been taken place in between 07.07.2023 to 11.06.2025. The first information report was lodged on 26.07.2025 inter-alia on the allegations that the applicant are the money lender and they have committed an offence under section 4 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. It is alleged that the complainant had borrowed Rs.13 lacs from co-acussed Anupama Singh and out of the said amount Rs. 11,82,000/- has already been refunded and now Anupama demanding 18 lacs more. It has been further alleged that for payment of the said amount, the complainant is being harassed. It has been further alleged that 6 blank cheques signed by the complainant and her husband have been used for the said amount and those cheques have been misused. It has been further alleged that a forged agreement was got executed. The complainant has denied the signature over the said agreement. It has been further alleged that the blank cheques have been issued for recovery of the amount of Rs. 30 lacs and it is also alleged that the co-accused Anupama Singh is demanding 10% monthly interest on the aforesaid amount. It is also alleged that messages and conversation between the complainant and co-accused Anupama Singh has been recorded by her and she is using the same by sending it to relatives and friends of the complainant and also uses to abuse in filthy languages by telephonic call. It is further alleged that due to mental harassment by the co-accused, the complainant is taking treatment/counseling by psychiatrist. It is further alleged that co-accused Anupama Singh came to the house of the complainant in the month of May, 2024 and subsequently looted the 3 documents file by snatching from the hand of the complainant and threatened her to refund the same if and when she will give her the aforesaid amount otherwise she will destroy it. On the basis of report lodged by the complainant Smt. Alka Singh, the first information report bearing Crime No. 423/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 was registered against the co-accused Anupama Singh and investigation was initiated. It is further respectfully submitted by the applicant that perhaps during investigation, some other sections 338, 339, 61(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been inserted in this case (which reflects from the impugned bail rejection order dated 03.11.2025). Charge-sheet is yet to be filed and matter is being investigated by the police of Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), District – Sarguja. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that as he has not committed any of the offences alleged in the FIR. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that it concerns a dispute between the complainant, Smt. Alka Singh, and co-accused Anupama Singh regarding a purely civil money-lending transaction, and the name of the present applicant does not appear anywhere in the FIR nor has any specific allegation been made against him. The FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention only to create pressure upon co- accused Anupama Singh, against whom complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had already been filed and in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. The replies submitted by the complainant and her husband 4 in the Section 138 cases contain material omissions and contradictions when compared with the FIR, clearly demonstrating that the FIR is false, fabricated and an arm-twisting method adopted after issuance of summons in the said proceedings. The dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given a colour of criminality only to harass the lenders. The FIR, even if taken at face value, does not disclose any role whatsoever of the applicant; his subsequent implication during investigation is nothing but an afterthought and a clear abuse of process of law. None of the offences alleged are punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the maximum punishment is up to seven years, therefore the rigours of Section 437(1) CrPC/Section 480 BNSS do not apply. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, as the entire matter is documentary in nature. The co-accused Anupama Singh and Pankaj Choudhary against whom specific allegations exist have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore, on the ground of parity and in view of the fact that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor beneficiary of any transaction, he is also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The continuation of investigation without arrest would sufficiently serve the ends of justice, whereas denial of anticipatory bail would cause grave prejudice to the applicant’s liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The FIR, lodged due to personal enmity and family dispute between the complainant and co-accused, does not make out any offence against the present applicant, who has neither signed nor prepared any document in relation to the alleged transaction. The applicant belongs to a respectable family and his arrest would cause irreparable harm to his 5 reputation. He reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of final hearing and undertakes to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. 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, it is noted that the co-accused Anupama Singh has already been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8610 of 2025 vide order dated 30.10.2025, and the other co-accused, namely Pankaj Choudhary, has been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 8892 of 2025 vide order dated 07.11.2025. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined 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 – Vikas Kumar Mishra, on executing a personal bond and 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. 6 (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. (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