1 CGHC010312542026 2026:CGHC:35983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7444 of 2026 Shailendra Rajak S/o - Late Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 39 Years R/o- A.K.S. Smart City, Gram- Pahanda, Police Station Amleshwar, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D.D. Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This is the :rst bail application :led 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. 404/2026 registered at Police Station – D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o<ences punishable under Section 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant alleged that, in January 2026, he came across an advertisement on social media regarding paper plate/dona-pattal making machinery being operated under the name and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.14 16:52:19 +0530 2 style of “Uddaan Machinery (Numanta Care Pvt. Ltd.).” On 04.06.2026, the complainant purchased a hydraulic Dona-Pattal making machine, namely, “Chhota Bheem,” from the applicant’s unit vide Invoice No. NC/SL/26-27/22 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,209/-. Out of the total amount, the complainant paid Rs. 2,30,000/- up to 03.06.2026 through cash and online transfers, leaving an outstanding balance payable to the applicant. The complainant alleged that, after the purchase, the machine stopped working and further accused the applicant of cheating him by making false representations regarding the supply of raw materials and the buyback of :nished products at a pro:t. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 318(4) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the foresaid case. He submits that the transaction between the applicant and the complainant is purely commercial in nature, as evidenced by Tax Invoice No. NC/SL/26-27/22 dated 04.06.2026. Any alleged defect in the machinery or disagreement regarding the contractual terms falls exclusively within the realm of civil law/consumer dispute. A breach of contract or a commercial warranty does not, by itself, constitute the criminal o<ence of cheating. He also submits that to attract the provisions of Section 318(4) of the BNS, fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the very inception of the transaction. The applicant actually manufactured and delivered the physical machine, namely, “Chhota Bheem,” worth Rs. 3,00,209/-. The delivery of the goods under a valid invoice completely negatives the existence of any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. He also submits that the total cost of the machinery was Rs. 3,00,209/-, against which the complainant 3 paid only Rs. 2,30,000/-. When the applicant demanded payment of the outstanding balance, the complainant falsely alleged that the machine had malfunctioned and lodged the present false criminal complaint with the intention of evading payment of the remaining amount. The present FIR is not an independent grievance of a bona :de consumer but is rather the direct fallout of a calculated and retaliatory conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by a third-party YouTuber operating the channel “Nagesh-Mamta OFcial.” He also submits that the applicant had initially engaged the said YouTuber for business promotion and paid him an amount of Rs. 67,000/-. However, the said YouTuber subsequently started blackmailing the applicant and demanding illegal extortion money by threatening to damage the applicant’s business reputation. Having refused to succumb to such extortion, the applicant adopted the legal course and lodged a formal police complaint, through the “Bharatiya Mahila Shakti Foundation,” before the Commissioner of Police. Pursuant to the said complaint, preventive proceedings were initiated against the said YouTuber under Section 174 of the BNSS. He furthers submits that being deeply aggrieved by the applicant’s legal action against him, the said YouTuber initiated a malicious and vindictive smear campaign against the applicant. In order to exact revenge, the said YouTuber systematically contacted the applicant’s existing clients, including the present complainant. It was the said disgruntled YouTuber who actively convinced, tutored, and instigated the complainant to convert a normal civil/commercial dispute relating to accounts and contractual obligations into a criminal case. The present criminal proceedings have been initiated not in pursuit of justice, but as a proxy war allegedly waged by the said YouTuber to harass the applicant, exact revenge for the applicant’s earlier police complaint, and ultimately compel him to enter 4 into an extortionate settlement. The complainant is merely acting at the behest of the said vested interest. He submits that any failure to execute the exact terms of the agreement was due to bona :de business exigencies and prevailing market conditions, and not due to any criminal or fraudulent intention. A genuine business failure or inability to ful:l a commercial promise does not, by itself, constitute a criminal o<ence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the very inception of the transaction. He also submits that there are 60 prosecution witnesses and the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 30.06.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant induced the complainant to purchase the machine by making false representations regarding its functioning, supply of raw materials and buyback of :nished products at pro:t. It is further submitted that despite payment of Rs.2,30,000/-, the machine stopped functioning, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Hence, the applicant does not deserve the bene:t of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute arising out of a commercial transaction, the delivery of the machinery under a valid invoice, the fact that there are 60 prosecution witnesses, and that the applicant has been in custody since 30.06.2026, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been :led before 5 the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the Applicant – Shailendra Rajak, involved in Crime No. 404/2026 registered at Police Station – D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the o<ences punishable under Section 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall :le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates :xed 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 :xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suFcient 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 :xed 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, before 6 the trial court on the dates :xed 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 suFcient 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. OFce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek