1 CGHC010254782026 2026:CGHC:28894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6140 of 2026 Purushottam Das Manikpuri @ Kabir Singh S/o Shantidas Manikpuri Aged About 41 Years R/o Dholpur Khamhariya, P.S. Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) ...Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed 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. 286/2026 registered at Police Station : Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution case arises out of FIR registered as Crime No. 286/2026 at Police Station Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.07.10 18:04:21 +0530 2 Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the prosecution, the complainant, Dileshwar Singh Markam, alleged that on 16.03.2025, the applicant induced him to invest in a proposed partnership business for opening "Kabir M Super Mart" at Katghora. Pursuant thereto, the complainant allegedly transferred a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- through PhonePe and further paid Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash to the applicant. It is alleged that the proposed business never commenced and, upon demand for refund of the invested amount, the applicant issued five cheques drawn on UCO Bank amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/-, all of which were dishonoured upon presentation. It is further alleged that on 02.07.2025, the applicant forwarded a fabricated bank receipt through WhatsApp depicting a deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in order to mislead the complainant. The applicant was arrested on 15.04.2026 and, after completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No. 230/2026 was filed before the competent Court on 09.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the transaction in question was a bona fide business arrangement which subsequently failed and, therefore, the dispute is essentially civil in nature. It is further submitted that the bank statements demonstrate that the applicant had repaid an amount of Rs. 78,000/- to the complainant on different occasions, thereby negating any initial fraudulent or dishonest intention. It is also 3 contended that the complainant has projected an inflated financial claim by including several self-transactions as well as transfers made to a third party, namely Malti Manikpuri, as part of the alleged cheated amount. He further submtis that the applicant has one criminal antecedant of the year 2026 in which he was acquitted. It is further submitted that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and all material evidence, including the cheques, the alleged forged receipt and the vehicle, has been seized. Therefore the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has cheated the complainant of a substantial amount by inducing him to invest in a proposed business and thereafter issued dishonoured cheques and a fabricated bank receipt to mislead him. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent. Considering the gravity of the offence and his criminal antecedent, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. So far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, it is not in dispute that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, which has culminated in his acquittal. Considering the nature of the 4 allegations, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.04.2026, all material evidence has already been seized, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that further pre-trial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 7. Let applicant, Purushottam Das Manikpur @ Kabir Singh, involved in Crime No. 286/2026 registered at Police Station : Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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, 5 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 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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti