1 2026:CGHC:6273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1203 of 2026 Sandeep Lakra S/o Samaylal Lakra Aged About 33 Years R/o Singitana, P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O,cer Of Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This is the First bail application 3led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 343/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 467, 468 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the pretext of selling land admeasuring 35 dicmil, the present applicant allegedly received a sum of ₹25,00,000/– from the complainant, partly in cash KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 and partly through online transactions, during the period from 26.04.2022 to 25.04.2024. However, no documentary proof of such transactions forms part of the charge-sheet, and the police have only included a typed statement of payment prepared by the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an o:ence under Section 420 IPC (cheating) has been registered against the applicant in connection with Crime No. 343/2025. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet has been 3led before the competent Court for the said o:ence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The 3rst alleged transaction dates back to 26.04.2022, and as per the prosecution story, the alleged cheating continued until 25.04.2024; however, no explanation has been provided as to why the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than one year. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The complainant has merely produced a typed statement of alleged transactions, whereas the investigating agency has made no e:ort to seize the passbook or obtain the bank account statement of the applicant, which would have revealed whether any such transaction actually took place. In the absence of cogent documentary evidence, the allegations remain unsubstantiated. Therefore, the applicant prays for grant of bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant induced the complainant on the pretext of selling 3 land and dishonestly obtained ₹25,00,000/–, thereby committing a serious o:ence of cheating involving a substantial amount. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been 3led and the material collected during investigation supports the prosecution case and further the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2013 under the Gambling Act. Considering the nature of the allegations, the manner of cheating and the gravity of the o:ence, the applicant is not entitled to the bene3t of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation against the applicant relates to an amount of ₹25,00,000/– allegedly taken on the pretext of sale of land, however, no primary documentary proof of the alleged transactions forms part of the charge-sheet and only a typed statement of the complainant has been 3led. The alleged transactions span from 2022 to 2024, yet the FIR was lodged after considerable delay without proper explanation. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been 3led, thus further custodial detention is not required. The applicant has no signi3cant criminal antecedents except one old Gambling Act case of 2013. Therefore, without further commenting on merits, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Sandeep Lakra, involved in Crime No. 343/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Sections 420, 201, 467, 4 468 of IPC, 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 3le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 3xed 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 3xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su,cient 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 3xed 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 3xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 5 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su,cient 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. 9. O,ce is directed to send a certi3ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal