1 CGHC010281182026 2026:CGHC:32404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1195 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Sri Bhikham Lal Chandrakar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Latera Distric Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station - Amleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.80/2026 registered at Police Station – Amleshwar, District- RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Ahmed Ali, lodged a written report alleging that in the year 2013, the accused persons, namely, Pinku Ghosh, Naresh Damohe, and Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar, induced him to purchase a residential plot from Sanchay Developers & Promoters by representing that the land was duly approved and would be registered after payment of the sale consideration. Acting upon such representations, the complainant paid the entire consideration in installments and subsequently paid additional amounts towards registration. Although a sale deed was executed in his favour on 21.03.2021, the accused failed to hand over valid and authenticated title documents. Upon inquiry, the complainant came to know that the accused had allegedly sold land in excess of the available area, due to which the land could not be authenticated. Alleging that the accused had dishonestly induced him and committed land fraud by misappropriating the sale consideration, Crime No. 80/2026 was registered at Police Station Amleshwar, and investigation was taken up. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant's role was confined merely to that of a commission agent, who introduced prospective purchasers to Sanchay Developers & Promoters and received commission on 3 the sale of plots. The applicant was neither a Director nor a partner of the said firm and had no role in its management, affairs, accounts, or records. It is further submitted that no specific allegation of forgery, fabrication, or manipulation of documents has been attributed to the applicant and the alleged acts of excess sale of land or other irregularities pertain exclusively to the Directors of the company. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that two FIRs have been registered against co-accused Pinku Ghosh, the Director of Sanchay Developers & Promoters, and his application for anticipatory bail in the other crime has already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 1119 of 2026. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Pinku Ghosh. The specific allegation against the present applicant is that he acted merely as a commission agent by introducing prospective purchasers to Sanchay Developers & Promoters. Prima facie, the applicant was neither a Director nor a partner of 4 the said firm and no specific allegation of forgery, fabrication, or manipulation of any document has been attributed to him. It is also not disputed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the rejection of anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Pinku Ghosh in MCRCA No. 1119 of 2026, who is alleged to be one of the Directors of the company, does not stand on the same footing as the case of the present applicant. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar on executing a personal bond and 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 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing those facts to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner that would be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed by the said Court till the disposal of the trial. 5 (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card along with a coloured postcard-size photograph bearing the printed Aadhaar number thereon, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ruchi