1 2026:CGHC:5276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 147 of 2026 • Gyan Singh Gill S/o Late Shri Khushi Ram Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Bodri, Nayapara, Ward No. 4, Chakarbhata, P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. This is the First 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 Crime No.65/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused persons, namely Gyan Singh Gill, Nagendra Rai and TakeshwarPatle, allegedly furnished false information regarding a belonging to the wife of Gyan VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.02 10:51:00 +0530 2 Singh Gill, namely Harjinder Kaur. The complainant, Pankaj Bhojwani, partner of P.M. Constructions and engaged in the business of construction and sale of houses, came into contact with co- accused Nagendra Rai through another co-accused Takeshwar Patle, who represented that a land situated at Shrikant Verma Marg, Bilaspur, bearing Khasra No. 723/2 admeasuring 0.0530 hectare and owned by Harjinder Kaur, was available for sale. It is alleged that a sale transaction was agreed upon for a total consideration of ₹3,00,00,000/-, pursuant to which the complainant paid ₹50,00,000/- to Harjinder Kaur on 23.02.2023 and an additional ₹10,00,000/- to Dilip Associates on the directions of co-accused Nagendra Rai towards documentation and commission. Despite assurances regarding demarcation of the land, the sale deed was not executed, and the complainant subsequently came to know that a civil dispute relating to the said land was pending between Harjinder Kaur and Anil Tiwari. It is further alleged that the applicant, Gyan Singh Gill, executed an agreement dated 09.10.2024 with one Avinash Peshwani for a consideration of 50,00,000/- in respect of a ₹ 30% share in the same land, while suppressing the fact that an amount of 1,00,00,000/- was also payable by Gyan Singh Gill to ₹ Avinash Patle under the said agreement. Additionally, co-accused Nagendra Rai and Takeshwar Patle allegedly received 4,00,000/- for ₹ demarcation and settlement of the dispute, but neither refunded the amount nor executed the sale deed, thereby defrauding the complainant of a total sum of 64,00,000/-, leading to the lodging of ₹ the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the 3 dispute, as reflected from the FIR, arises out of a land transaction and alleged non-execution of a sale deed, which is predominantly civil in nature, for which appropriate civil remedies are available to the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen aged about 63 years and is suffering from chronic kidney failure. He has been undergoing dialysis three times a week for the last six years. The applicant’s medical condition is serious and continuing custodial interrogation or arrest would endanger his life and cause irreparable harm to his health. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical documents annexed as Annexure A/9 (colly), evidencing the applicant’s illness and dialysis schedule. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences. However, it is fairly conceded that the dispute arises out of a transaction relating to immovable property. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the predominantly civil character of the dispute, the age and serious medical condition of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Gyan Singh Gill 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 on the following 4 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored 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 vaishali