1 CGHC010217872026 2026:CGHC:29188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 945 of 2026 Sanjay Agrawal S/o Mamanchand Agrawal Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Bhuji Bhawan Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri SS Baghel, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.438/2020 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.13 12:09:25 +0530 2 420 & 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant filed a written report on 30.3.2019 with the concerned Police Station stating that the complainant is the owner of piece of land situated at Khasra No.144, 146, total ad measuring 1.682 hectare, Village Urdana, Tahsil Raigarh. In the year 2009, due to financial need, she entered into an agreement to sell with the applicant for sale of 1 acre from the above land. Thereafter for the next 2-3 years, the applicant along with co-accused Sunil Agrawal held on the sale transaction in the name of grant of permission of the land belonging to ST from the Revenue Department. In the year 2012, the applicant informed that he has obtained permission in his name and on the same day 1 acre of the said land was agreed to be sold at Rs.30 lakhs and an advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs was obtained in cash. On 26.9.2012, the complainant went to the Registrar Office wherein the complainant received a cheque of Rs.30 lakhs from the applicant and signed on some papers prepared by co-accused Sunil Agrawal. On the same day, she deposited the said cheque of Rs.30 lakhs and after clearance of the said cheque, an amount of Rs.30 lakhs was received by the complainant. In the year 2018, the complainant received a notice from the Income Tax Department stating that the complainant is liable to pay tax income of Rs.2,42,72,800/-. The complainant came to know that her entire land has been sold in favour of one Anand Singh Rathiya and after diversion, the price of the 3 aforesaid land was calculated as Rs.3,42,72,000/-. Thereafter the complainant contacted the applicant and co-accused and they assured that they would settle the matter from the Income Tax Department, but will neither pay the amount nor return the land. Thereafter FIR was registered. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no offence much less an offence under Section 420, 34 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. Moreover, the essential ingredients of offence has not been brought home by the prosecution. The present complaint has been filed after delay of more than 6 years after execution of sale deed in 2012 and that too it was filed only when the complainant received notice of the Income Tax to pay tax on the diverted land at the market value. The complainant had also filed an application before the SDO under Section 170-B and thereafter a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed solely with ulterior motive to somehow come out of clutches of the Income Tax liability and as such, it is clear that the above criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of Court. The allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR is an afterthought and the same has been lodged with ulterior motive and malafide. Similarly placed co-accused person has already been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2020 passed in MCRCA No.860/2020. Therefore the applicant be released on bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent registered against him in the year 2012. Therefore, the bail application may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the present complaint has been filed with a delay of 6 years after execution of sale deed and that too when the complainant received notice of the Income Tax Department to pay tax on the diverted land and that co-accused has already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2020 passed in MCRCA No.860/2020, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Sanjay Agrawal, 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 conditions:- (a) He should 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 should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. 5 (c) he should 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 sureties 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) He should not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Barve