1 2026:CGHC:9086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1799 of 2026 Alok Bhagat S/o Durgalal Bhagat Aged About 35 Years R/o Barsapara, Chitalanka, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra Dantewada, District Dantewada,Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh , Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.02.2026 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. 131/2025 registered at Police Station - Arakshi Kendra Dantewada, District Dantewada(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 120B & 34 of the IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.20 14:48:59 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant lodged an FIR alleging that the applicant, a Government doctor residing at the District Hospital Dantewada, committed fraud in relation to the construction of a multi-specialty hospital. According to the FIR, the complainant became acquainted with the applicant between 2021 and 2022 during visits to the hospital and the applicant’s clinic. The applicant allegedly represented himself as engaged in property, land, and mining businesses, claimed connections with the Finance Department of the Government of India, and displayed a luxurious lifestyle to gain the complainant’s trust. The applicant purportedly showed the complainant various plots of land, including a 2.5-acre plot near Ninth Battalion, stating plans to construct a shopping mall, a three-star hotel, and a hospital, and assured the complainant that he would arrange government funding under schemes such as Stand Up India or Ayushman Bharat, given the area’s tribal status. Relying on these assurances, the complainant, belonging to a tribal category, paid the applicant a total of Rs. 32 lakh in installments between March and September 2021 through cheques and an additional Rs. 5 lakh in cash after further demands. The applicant allegedly induced the complainant to register a trust, “Rajmohini Foundation,” and delayed providing written agreements despite repeated assurances. Subsequently, the applicant ceased communication, allegedly cheating the complainant of approximately Rs. 67 lakh along with other accused, under the pretext of arranging funding for the hospital project. The complainant, therefore, filed the FIR seeking recovery of the amounts along with interest. The applicant and his family members approached this Hon’ble Court in CRMP No. 311/2026 seeking relief, where the arrest 3 of the other accused was stayed; however, as the applicant had already been arrested, his interim bail was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of approximately four years, which raises serious doubts, particularly as the complainant is a highly educated government doctor and it is improbable that he remained silent for such a long period. The applicant further submits that the Superintendent of Police of District Dantewada is a close friend and classmate of the complainant, and both allegedly exerted pressure on the police to lodge the FIR, with ulterior motives to grab the applicant’s costly land valued at around Rs. 3 crore. The applicant contends that the FIR has been filed to convert what is essentially a civil dispute regarding repayment of money and interest into a criminal case, and that due to his tribal status, there is an increased risk of property being forcibly taken. The applicant has been in custody since 26/12/2025, and when his earlier bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court, Naxal), he sought a certified copy of the order, which could not be supplied immediately due to administrative issues, and copies of the relevant applications and receipts have been filed as Annexure A/S. It is further submitted that the mother of the applicant had previously approached the DGP on 28/08/2024 alleging a conspiracy by the complainant, SP Rajesh Dhruw, SP Gaurav Rai, and Forest Department officials to target the applicant and his family to seize their property; the matter was referred back to the SP but not properly investigated, further victimizing the applicant and his family (Annexure A/6). The applicant 4 also submits that the police have not followed mandatory provisions under Section 35 of the BNSS and Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., and he was arrested suddenly on 26/12/2025 without informing any relatives. Prior to lodging the FIR, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 11/09/2025 demanding repayment of money with interest, clearly indicating the civil nature of the dispute (Annexure A/7). It is further submitted that previous criminal cases against the applicant were motivated and influenced by the complainant (Annexure A/87). The applicant affirms that he is a permanent resident at the stated address, is willing to furnish adequate surety, and undertake to abide by all terms and conditions as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court. In light of the above facts, it is respectfully prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that he has no previous criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and further noting that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.12.2025, it is pertinent to mention that the applicant and his family members had preferred CRMP No. 311 of 2026 before this Hon’ble Court, which was listed on 30.01.2026, wherein the arrest of the other accused was 5 stayed and only the applicant remained in custody. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Alok Bhagat, involved in Crime No. 131/2025 registered at Police Station - Arakshi Kendra Dantewada, District Dantewada(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 120B & 34 of the IPC., be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 6 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 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav