1 2026:CGHC:6033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 167 of 2026 Vinod Bajoria S/o Laxminarayan Bajoria Aged About 57 Years R/o 901, Aditya Greens Opp. Rj Prime, S.P. Ring Road, Zundal, Gandhinagar, Gujarat-382421 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 20/2026, registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the FIR has been lodged at the instance of Sambhav Tubes Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025 with Hi-Tech Abrasives Private ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.04 11:28:01 +0530 2 Limited for the purchase of certain land, pursuant to which an advance amount of Rs. 11,51,00,000/- was allegedly paid. It is further alleged that, subsequent to the payment of the advance amount, the complainant discovered that the said land was already mortgaged with a bank, and on that basis, offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 have been alleged. The concerned police station, on the basis of the complaint, registered a First Information Report for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Mr. Otwani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that even if the entire prosecution story is assumed to be true and taken at its face value, no offence is made out against the present applicant. The Applicant has been falsely implicated due to personal vendetta and sheer misuse of the criminal machinery. He also submits that the complainant has mechanically arrayed all persons who were ever associated with the accused Company as accused, without verifying their period of involvement or their role, if any, in the alleged transaction. The FIR itself acknowledges that a Board Resolution dated 10.03.2025 authorized Mr. Laxmichand Gurwani to execute documents on behalf of the Company, which clearly demonstrates that the Applicant had no authority, role, or participation in the alleged transaction. He further submits that criminal liability can arise only against persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time. The Applicant, having resigned from the Company in the year 2020, no cause of action survives against him for acts allegedly committed in the year 2025. He also submits that there is no requirement for custodial interrogation of the applicant, as the 3 Applicant is not a signatory to the Agreement to Sell, has not received any money, did not participate in any negotiations, and does not possess any document relevant to the investigation. Further, the Applicant had resigned from the directorship of Hi-Tech Abrasives Private Limited on 01.06.2020, much prior to the alleged negotiations in October 2025, the Board Resolution dated 10.03.2025, the Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025, and the alleged receipt of advance amounts in the year 2025. Accordingly, the Applicant had no legal, managerial, or financial role whatsoever in the affairs of the Company during the relevant period. The Applicant’s resignation was duly accepted and recorded with the Registrar of Companies, and the statutory Master Data of the Company and Form DIR-12 conclusively establish that the Applicant was not associated with the Company during the period of the alleged offence. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant, having resigned from the Company in the year 2020, cannot be said to have any connection with the acts allegedly committed in the year 2025. The applicant resigned from the directorship of Hi-Tech Abrasives Private Limited on 01.06.2020, much prior to the alleged negotiations in October 2025, the Board Resolution dated 10.03.2025, the Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025, and the alleged receipt of advance amounts in the year 2025. Therefore, it clearly appears that the applicant had resigned 4 long before the alleged incident and had no connection whatsoever with the events in question. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, without further commenting 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 - Vinod Bajoria, 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) 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. (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 Abhishek