1 CGHC010242652026 2026:CGHC:27741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1029 of 2026 Indar Yadav S/o Laxmi Narayan Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Netaji Chouk, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 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.380/2026 registered at Police Station - Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23/05/2026 the complainant namely Pawan Kahara has lodged a written report before Police VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.08 12:01:17 +0530 2 Station Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) against the applicant stating that the applicant has taken money of Rs.15 lakh on 10/09/2024 and Rs.8 lakhs on 17/09/2024 for selling his land but after taking money he did not registry the land in the name of complainant till date, therefore the complainant has lodged FIR before P.S. Janjgir which was registered vide Crime No.380/2026 for offence U/S 318(4) of B.N.S against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant and his brother are businessmen dealing in rods and cement and had financial transactions with the complainant. It is further submitted that out of the amount borrowed, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest has already been repaid and the complainant has been pressurizing the applicant and his family members to pay the remaining amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Learned counsel submits that, prior to the registration of the present FIR, the applicant's brother had lodged an FIR against the complainant on 17.03.2026 at Police Station Janjgir for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296, 331(6) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and thereafter, by way of a counterblast, the complainant lodged the present FIR after an unexplained delay of about one year and eight months from the date of the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the complainant had issued a legal notice regarding dishonour of a cheque, to which an appropriate reply has already been given, and thus the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Learned counsel further submits that the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address 3 mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a written report on 23.05.2026 at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, alleging that the applicant had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs on 10.09.2024 and a further sum of Rs.8 lakhs on 17.09.2024 from the complainant on the pretext of selling his land, but despite receiving the said amount, failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.380/2026 was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Learned State counsel further submitted that the investigation has collected sufficient material against the applicant and that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, which reflects his conduct. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the criminal antecedent of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail and the present bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and the case diary, this Court finds that, prima facie, the 4 applicant is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a total amount of Rs.23,00,000/- on the pretext of selling the land in question. The case diary further reveals that agreements in respect of the proposed sale transaction were executed before a Notary and substantial amounts were paid through cheques as well as in cash. It has also come on record during the investigation that the land in question had already been mortgaged with the Central Bank of India prior to the execution of the agreement with the complainant, and despite receiving the amount, the applicant neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money to the complainant. The investigation further indicates that the amount received by the applicant had been withdrawn from his bank account. Thus, at this stage, there is prima facie material to indicate the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. In view of these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any ground for grant of bail, and accordingly, the present bail application is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Indar Yada, involved in Crime No.380/2026 registered at Police Station - Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav