1 2025:CGHC:56202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1801 of 2025 Prashant Mishra S/o Shri Ghanshyam Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Rajmahal Parisar, Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Dantewada District Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station – Dantewada, District- Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Raghavendra Singh Bhadoria, lodged a written complaint on 21.01.2025 at Police Station Dantewada, District Dantewada, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 alleging that he had executed an agreement with the applicant on 12.03.2022 for construction of a house and had paid an amount of Rs. 6,70,000/- to the applicant as advance. Thereafter, when the complainant asked the applicant either to construct the house or to return the money, the applicant repeatedly procrastinated and failed to fulfill the agreed obligations. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no material exists to connect him with the alleged offence. It is contended that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of an agreement dated 12.03.2022 regarding sale and construction of a house, under which the complainant had paid an advance amount. He further submits that the applicant had already carried out part of the construction work, but the complainant himself defaulted in making the remaining payment, due to which the work could not be completed, and the complainant has now given a criminal colour to a civil dispute merely to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no plausible explanation for the delayed lodging of the FIR, which also casts doubt on the prosecution case. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from “Proximal Tibia Fracture Right with ligament injury – Schatzker Type-VI” and underwent surgery on 17.12.2024, as supported by medical documents filed as Annexure A-3 Colly. Hence, considering the civil nature of the dispute and the medical condition of the 3 applicant, the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. It is submitted that the complainant had paid a substantial amount of Rs. 6,70,000/- to the applicant under a duly executed agreement for construction of a house, and despite repeated demands, the applicant neither commenced the construction work nor returned the money, thereby clearly attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence. He also submits that the conduct of the applicant reflects deliberate cheating and wrongful gain, and the allegations are supported by the written complaint as well as the materials collected during investigation. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the allegations, the admitted existence of a civil dispute arising out of an agreement dated 12.03.2022, the fact that the complainant had alternative remedies available for recovery of money, the absence of any material indicating that the applicant would abscond or tamper with evidence, as well as the medical condition of the applicant who is stated to be suffering from “Proximal Tibia Fracture Right with ligament injury – Schatzker Type-VI” for which he has recently undergone surgery, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of 4 anticipatory bail, therefore, 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 – Prashant Mishra, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, 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 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 Rahul Dewangan