1 CGHC010292512026 2026:CGHC:33209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1224 of 2026 Laxmi Prasad Dadsena S/o Shri Sonau Ram Dadsena Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Karnound, P.S. Birra, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 495668 ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Champa, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Uday Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Soumya Rai, Deputy GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.267/2026 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.01 11:42:05 +0530 2 Section 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the son of the applicant allegedly induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for selling his Fortuner Car and son of the applicant has already received Rs.10 lakhs. It was settled between them that rest of the amount would be paid at the time of selling the car. Thereafter son of the applicant sold his car to one Deepak Kumar Agrawal. On coming to know the said fact, when the complainant demanded his money back, son of the applicant did not return the amount to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the police and son of the applicant was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant happens to be father of the accused, who is already in jail and he does not have any criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the dispute is between the son of the applicant and the complainant, and the entire principal amount has already been paid. Therefore the applicant be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the dispute is between the son of the applicant and the complainant, and the entire principal amount has already been paid, as such, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Laxmi Prasad Dadsena, on executing a personal bond with 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 should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Barve