1 2026:CGHC:6621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1 of 2026 Pratul Kishor Janefalkar S/o Shri Kishor Janefalkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Plot No. 57/a, Flat No. 304, Akshay Apartment, Trimurti Nagar, Near Sbi, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur (Maharashtra) ... Applicant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Vimlesh Kumar Tiwari (Proprietor Of M/s Deep Enterprises) S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o O-2, Vardhaman Nagar, Deopuri, District Raipur (C.G.) … Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant No. 1/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate. For Non-applicant No.2 Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with a complaint filed by the complainant (Vimlesh Kumar Tiwari, Proprietor of M/s Deep Enterprises) registered at Police Station – Purani Basti, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.06 17:29:10 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the applicant's firm i.e. M/s Kavira Solutions and has tied up with the Chhattisgarh Social welfare department and has received a Tender for purchase of Tricycle, for which Respondent No. 2/ Complainant (Vimlesh Kumar Tiwari, Proprietor of M/s Deep Enterprises) has invested his firm to gain profit. For that, the complainant had given total of Rs. 4,29,50,000/- between the period from 05.10.2024 to 28.02.2025 in installments, but has merely received Rs. 1,30,00,000/- with assurance that remaining amount would be returned till March-2025, but same has not been paid to him. On the basis of the said complaint respondent No.1 has started investigation, and is conducting enquiry, and has issued notices to the applicant for appearance before the police station. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 15.01.2026, the parties had appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court, but the mediation between the parties have become failed. Further, respondent No.2 with an only to harass the applicant has filed a complaint before the Police, and trying to attribute criminal liability on the applicant. He also submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He later submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab” (1980) 2 SCC 565, has held that anticipatory bail can be granted even before registration of FIR, where genuine apprehension of arrest exists. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 3 5. The learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2/Objector opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant shown the work order issued in favor of his firm M/s Kavira Solutions District Nagpur (MS) issued by Social Welfare Department (Raipur Chhattisgarh) for supply of 200 Bartee powered tricycles. The applicant stated that he has not sufficient fund for carrying out the orders, and persuaded the objector if he gives him Rs 4,29,50,000/-, he will give him profit from the income of project. The objector believed the version of the applicant and gave him Rs 4,29,50,000/-. The petitioner gave him many blank cheques to support his false promise and cheating. The applicant gave him Rs 1,30,000/- and assured him that he will pay the remaining amount at the time of final of accounting, but thereafter applicant left Raipur without any information and avoiding meeting the objector. The applicant has to pay 2 crores 98 lakhs and 95,000/-. The objector went to Nagpur in search of applicant but he had left the place of his residence. From the conduct of applicant it is clear that he had dishonest intention from inception. The objector had collected money from his relatives and friends and also sold his property to give money to the applicant. Because of cheating committed by the applicant the financial condition of the objector has become very bad. The applicant attended mediation center on 28/01/2025 and he did not come to mediation center on 4/02/2026. The applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and the fact that the mediation 4 between the parties have become failed, also considering the fact that the dispute between the parties are purely business transaction and are civil in nature, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Pratul Kishor Janefalkar on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, he shall be released on bail, if any FIR is registered against the applicant in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant (Vimlesh Kumar Tiwari, Proprietor of M/s Deep Enterprises). Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti