1 2026:CGHC:26374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 954 of 2026 Punit Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 505, Block 22-27, Naya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0085/2026 registered at Police Station – Mana (Mana Camp), District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61 & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.30 10:49:12 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a private complaint filed by the complainant, Smt. Kavita Mandal, under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in the court of Shri Guru Prasad Dewangan, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Raipur. On 16.03.2026, the learned JMFC issued a direction to the police to register an offense, conduct an investigation, and submit a final report. Pursuant to the court's order, the FIR was formally registered by the Sub-Inspector at P.S. Mana Camp on 20.03.2026 at 12:57 PM. The alleged fraudulent transactions took place over a two- week window between 08/07/2024 and 22/07/2024. The complainant stated that she was well-acquainted with the primary accused, Rakesh Mandal, and his wife, Sarita Mandal, as they belonged to the same neighborhood. It is alleged that Rakesh Mandal and his associate, Punit Singh (the Applicant), acting with common intention and fraudulent motives, represented themselves as running a "partnership firm". The accused persons allegedly claimed that they could assist applicants in quickly securing houses allotted under the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) housing scheme. They allegedly assured the complainant that they would get her a premium house in Raipur under the scheme. The total amount involved in the alleged fraud is Rs.7,10,000/- (Seven Lakh Ten Thousand Rupees). Acting on the assurances of the accused, the complainant used a mobile UPI application on 08/07/2024 to transfer an initial sum of Rs.50,000/- directly to the mobile phone/UPI account of the applicant, Punit Singh. Subsequent transactions were handled between the other co-accused individuals. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are conspicuously absent, as the prosecution has failed to establish any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the applicant at the very inception of the alleged transaction. The dispute, at its core, arises out of a failed commercial/civil arrangement concerning a proposed partnership enterprise, which has been deliberately and maliciously given a criminal colour. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the primary dealings, financial transactions, and neighborhood relationship existed exclusively between the complainant and the co-accused, namely, Rakesh Mandal and Sarita Mandal, whereas the only allegation against the present applicant pertains to a solitary UPI transaction of Rs.50,000/- dated 08.07.2024. No material has been placed on record to attribute any active inducement, overt act, participation in the alleged representations, or involvement in the subsequent cash transactions amounting to Rs.7,10,000/- to the applicant. The said amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by the applicant in the ordinary course of business as repayment of a personal loan/business transaction from co-accused Rakesh Mandal and does not constitute either illegal gratification or any share in the alleged proceeds of crime. It is further significant that although the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred between 08.07.2024 and 22.07.2024, the private complaint and the consequent FIR came to be lodged only in March, 2026, after an unexplained delay of nearly twenty months, which clearly indicates that the allegations are an afterthought 4 aimed at falsely implicating the applicant and exerting financial pressure. The maximum punishment prescribed for the principal offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS is imprisonment up to seven years, and it is well settled that custodial interrogation in such offences is not to be resorted to as a matter of course unless demonstrably necessary. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, has deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence, and he has expressed his willingness to cooperate fully with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. In these circumstances, the applicant deserves to be granted the protection of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit 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 – Punit Singh, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the 5 arresting Officer, 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 vaibhav