1 CGHC010276612026 2026:CGHC:31485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6649 of 2026 Shibram Kalar S/o Arjun Kalar Aged About 42 Years R/o Goramba District- Navrangpur (Orissa) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, P.S.- Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 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. 70/2026 registered at Police Station- Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, are that a written complaint dated 24.06.2026 was lodged by complainants namely Falguni Sethia, Budhram Kashyap, Chandrashekhar Sethia, Amir Baghel and Sukhman Baghel, all residents of Village Nandpura, before Police RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar. It is alleged that the complainants had cultivated maize (corn) crops during the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 and, after harvesting, sold the produce to the applicant on different occasions. According to the complainants, a total sum of Rs. 22,25,449/- became payable by the applicant towards the price of the maize so purchased; however, despite repeated demands, the applicant failed to make the payment. It is further alleged that when the complainants approached the applicant for payment of the outstanding amount, he refused to pay and allegedly threatened them with consequences. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the police registered the present FIR against the applicant for the alleged offences and, during the course of investigation, arrested him. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the dispute, if any, arises out of a commercial transaction relating to the purchase and sale of maize and has been given a criminal colour with an ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant and complainant Falguni Sethia are relatives and have been engaged in agricultural business transactions for several years. It is contended that, pursuant to an oral arrangement between them, the applicant had, from time to time, provided financial assistance and agricultural inputs, including seeds, fertilizers, gunny bags and cash advances, to facilitate maize cultivation. It is further submitted that in the crop season of 2023, all accounts between the parties were duly settled after 3 adjustment of the amounts advanced by the applicant. Thereafter, in the year 2024, the applicant again incurred substantial expenditure and advanced money to the complainant for cultivation; however, the complainant allegedly sold the produce to a third party and assured the applicant that the accounts would be settled in the following season. He submits that in the year 2025, the complainant again supplied maize to the applicant and, after adjustment of the amounts previously advanced and expenses incurred by the applicant, the balance payment was made through self-cheques and cash. It is, therefore, argued that no amount remains payable by the applicant to the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has no acquaintance, business dealings or transactions with the other complainants named in the FIR and that his only connection is with complainant Falguni Sethia. It is contended that if any amount was received by Falguni Sethia on behalf of other farmers and was not distributed to them, the applicant cannot be held responsible for the same. He further argues that even assuming the allegations to be true, the matter essentially pertains to a contractual or monetary dispute for which an appropriate civil remedy is available and the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are not attracted. It is also submitted that despite the alleged transactions having taken place over the period from 2023 to 2025, the complainants continued to maintain business relations with the applicant and no complaint was lodged during the relevant period, which itself casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. On these grounds, it is 4 submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 26.06.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of cheating and criminal intimidation wherein several farmers have allegedly been deprived of the legitimate consideration payable for the maize crop sold by them. It is contended that the complainants have consistently stated that, after purchasing their agricultural produce over a period of time, the applicant failed to make payment of an amount aggregating to Rs. 22,25,449/- and, when demanded, allegedly refused to pay and extended threats to the complainants. He submits that the investigation has revealed prima facie material indicating the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences and that the statements of the complainants and other witnesses support the prosecution case. It is further argued that the conduct of the applicant demonstrates a dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction and, therefore, the dispute cannot be treated as a mere civil dispute as sought to be projected by the defence. Considering the nature of allegations, the amount involved, the number of affected farmers, and the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, it is prayed that the applicant does 5 not deserve the benefit of bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that thought the allegation against the applicant is that he purchased maize crops from the complainants/farmers during the years 2023 to 2025 and was liable to pay a total amount of Rs. 22,25,449/- towards the sale consideration, however, despite receiving the produce, he allegedly failed to make the payment and, when the complainants demanded their money, he refused to pay and allegedly threatened them, but it is also to be noted that the dispute arises out of transactions relating to the purchase and sale of maize between the parties, the defence of the applicant that the accounts were settled after adjustment of the amounts advanced by him towards seeds, fertilizers, gunny bags and cash assistance, and further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, he has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Shibram Kalar, involved in Crime No. 70/2026 registered at Police Station- Bhanpuri, District- Bastar, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 351(2) of the 6 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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, 7 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan