1 2026:CGHC:8111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.1605 of 2026 Shri Narayana Prasad Tekriwal S/o Shri Nathmalram Tekriwal Aged About 70 Years R/o Mig 21, Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. SS Baghel, G.A. For Complainant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.13 19:13:03 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.20/2026 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, a report has been made on the allegation that the accused persons induced the complainant company in connection with a proposed immovable property transaction to part with substantial sums of money on the assurance that the property was free from encumbrances and legally transferable. Pursuant to meetings between the parties, an Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025 was executed and payments totaling approximately Rs.11.51 crores were made through banking channels. It is further alleged that the property was already mortgaged with financial institutions and was subject to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, a fact allegedly suppressed from the complainant, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Based on these allegations, offences as mentioned above were registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present 3 case, who is behind the bars since 16.01.2026. It is submitted that the dispute in question arises out of a purely commercial land sale transaction between two companies, wherein the complainant was fully aware that the subject property was mortgaged and that proceedings were pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had conducted due diligence before executing the Agreement to Sell and making payments. The FIR and case diary do not attribute any specific role, overt act or direct participation to the Applicant, who was neither a Director, promoter nor authorised signatory of the accused company at the relevant time and was not involved in its management, negotiations, representations, execution of documents, or receipt of any alleged consideration. It is further submitted that the Applicant is a senior citizen suffering from age-related ailments requiring continuous medical care, his family members have already paid a substantial sum of Rs.6 crores and undertaken to repay the remaining amount and he has fully cooperated with the investigation. He lastly submits that co-accused Vinod Bajorai has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in MCRCA No.167/2026, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, he may be 4 released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature and prima facie supported by the material collected during investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence and the amount involved, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage and prayed that the bail application may be rejected. However, learned Senior Advocate submits that a compromise has taken place in the matter. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations and the material available in the case diary, further considering that the Applicant, who is an old man aged 70 years, is in jail since 16.01.2026, co- accused Vinod Bajorai has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in MCRCA No.167/2026 and further considering that a compromise has taken place between the parties, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6. Let Applicant- Shri Narayana Prasad Tekriwal involved in Crime No.20/2026 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 5 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 6 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya