1 2026:CGHC:24776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 873 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Madan Lal Agrawal Aged About 59 Years Occupation Business R/o House No. 93/94, Govind Kunj Behind Krishna Adlabs Samta Colony Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Azad Chowk Raipur Distirct Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Objector : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 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 Crime No. 101/2026 registered at Police Station – Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Pankaj Chijwani, lodged a First Information Report on 14.05.2026 alleging that on 14.08.2023 he 2 agreed to purchase certain parcels of land situated at Ashoka Ratan, Adarsh Nagar, Mowa, bearing Khasra No. 573/9 admeasuring 0.056 hectare (6050 sq. ft.) and Khasra No. 573/16 admeasuring 0.039 hectare (4250 sq. ft.), having a total area of 10,300 sq. ft., from the applicant and other co-accused persons through land brokers. It is alleged that an agreement for sale was executed between the parties, pursuant to which the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- as earnest money by way of two cheques issued in the name of M/s Rajshri Properties, a firm allegedly owned by the applicant and the co-accused persons. Thereafter, during revenue demarcation proceedings, the complainant was informed that the subject land could not be identified in the revenue map due to the construction of a drain in the area and that one Anil Jain was also claiming title over the said land. Upon learning of the alleged dispute, the complainant demanded refund of the earnest amount. Since the amount was allegedly not returned, he lodged the present report against the applicant and the co-accused persons. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of a property transaction. He submits that the applicant continues to be ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in terms of the agreement and there is no impediment on the part of the applicant in completing the transaction. It is further submitted that, out of the amount received through cheques, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- has already been refunded to the complainant by the co-accused, which fact stands admitted from the complainant's own objections and the documents placed on record. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 3 4. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the application and submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs.28,00,000/- by representing that they had clear title and possession over the subject land, whereas the land was already under dispute and the said fact was deliberately concealed from the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant was fully aware of the pending dispute and revenue proceedings, yet proceeded with the transaction and received the consideration amount. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent transfer of Rs.8,00,000/- was made only after rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court and does not absolve the applicant of his criminal liability. Therefore, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail application be rejected. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused persons, induced the complainant to part with Rs.28,00,000/- on the false representation that they had clear title and possession over the subject land, despite being aware of the existing dispute. It is submitted that the allegations disclose the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, the investigation is still in progress, and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Therefore, it is prayed that the application for anticipatory bail be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, particularly the fact that the transaction in question pertains to a property deal between the parties, that the applicant has expressed his willingness either to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in 4 terms of the agreement or to settle the dispute by refunding the amount received, and further considering that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- has already been remitted to the complainant by the co-accused Sapna Singhania, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear necessary at this stage, therefore without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Anil Kumar Agrawal on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, 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 their 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 Jyoti