1 CGHC010260372026 2026:CGHC:29320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6194 of 2026 Varun Pratap Singh S/o Ajay Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Malviya Nagar, Shanti Niketan Apartments, P.S. Mohan Nagar District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O) P.S.- Pulgaon Chowki Jeora Sirsa, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 515/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, being the proprietor of M/s Durg Tractors and an authorised dealer of Kartar Harvesters, entered into separate agreements with the complainants, namely Parshuram Sahu, Dhanesh Dhimar and Tikaram Sahu, for the sale of new Kartar Model 4000 SV harvesters. It is alleged that after receiving the entire sale consideration, amounting in aggregate to Rs. 79,00,000/-, through cash, bank finance and exchange of old tractors, the applicant failed to deliver the harvesters and thereby dishonestly cheated the complainants. On the basis of the said allegations, the present crime was registered against the applicant for the alleged offence. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicant contends that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS are not made out, as the FIR does not disclose any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, the dispute arises out of contractual obligations and, at best, constitutes a civil dispute rather than a criminal offence. Further, one of the complainants has already instituted a civil suit in respect of the same transaction, and similar civil remedies are 3 available to the other complainants. He also submits that the applicant could not deliver the harvesters due to the sudden cancellation of his dealership by the Kartaar Company, which allegedly withdrew its earlier assurance regarding supply of harvesters under the Beej Nigam Subsidy Scheme and cancelled the applicant's authorization to sell under the said scheme. According to the applicant, these circumstances were beyond his control and resulted in substantial financial loss to him. He late submits that the applicant has been making bona fide efforts to refund the amounts received and discharge his financial liabilities, which is inconsistent with any dishonest intention. It is also contended that, in the case of complainant, Tikaram Sahu, delay in delivery occurred due to non-submission of the registration certificate of the old tractor offered as part of the down payment. The applicant is in jail since 05.06.2026, the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which, one is registered as case Crime No.524/2026, against which, the applicant has preferred bail application bearing MCRC No.6212 of 2026, which is also listed today and another is of the year 2019 under the IPC, in which applicant has already been acquitted of the charges, further the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in 4 the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly being the proprietor of M/s Durg Tractors and an authorised dealer of Kartar Harvesters, he dishonestly induced the complainants to purchase harvesters, received an aggregate amount of Rs. 79,00,000/- towards the sale consideration, but failed to deliver the harvesters. Furthermore, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2019 under the IPC, therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.06.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly being the proprietor of M/s Durg Tractors and an authorised dealer of Kartar Harvesters, he dishonestly induced the complainants to purchase harvesters, received Rs.79,00,000/- towards the sale consideration, and failed to deliver the same, but considering the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent pending against him registered as case Crime No.524 of 2026, against which the applicant preferred bail application bearing MCRC No.6212 of 2026, which is listed today at serial No.36 and the same is also allowed today itself by this Court, further the charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Varun Pratap Singh, involved in Crime No. 515/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 fixed 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 fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of 6 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil