1 CGHC010308922026 2026:CGHC:36075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7334 of 2026 Sanjeev Manikpuri S/o Naresh Manikpuri Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Singhanpuri, P.S. Kotwali District- Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Cyber Police Thana Range Sarguja, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. For the Objector : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 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. 04/2026 registered at Police Station - Cyber Police Thana Range Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 317(4), 238 of the BNS and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.14 10:59:47 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant lodged a report before the concerned Police Station against an unknown person, alleging that she had received calls from mobile numbers 9755902101 and 9201311561 and that the caller identified himself as Karan Kujjur. It is alleged that, on the pretext of marriage and by offering to arrange land at Raipur at a cheaper rate, the said person induced the complainant to part with a total amount of Rs.20,74,000/-. The complaint was submitted through the online NCPR portal, pursuant to which acknowledgment Nos. 33305260012725 and 33305260012719 were generated. During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested in connection with the alleged offence. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the investigation is complete; therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with or concealing the evidence or obstructing the due course of law. It is submitted that the allegation that the applicant impersonated himself as “Karan Kujur” and represented himself as an advocate at C.M. Bungalow, Raipur is baseless, as the applicant is engaged in the lawful business of real estate at Raipur and was already personally acquainted with the complainant. The complainant and the applicant came into contact through their respective spouses, who are working as staff nurses, and therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to impersonate any other person. The complainant was in regular telephonic contact with the applicant and had herself expressed her 3 desire to purchase land at Raipur; accordingly, the applicant showed her certain plots, one of which was initially approved by her, pursuant to which an advance amount was transferred to the applicant’s account, as reflected in the charge-sheet. Subsequently, when the complainant found the land to be expensive and sought refund of the advance amount, she submitted an application before Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur on 17.04.2026, wherein she categorically stated that she did not want any action to be taken against the applicant, and the matter was amicably settled. Despite the said settlement, the complainant subsequently lodged the present report before the Cyber Police Station, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, giving the transaction a different colour and converting what is essentially a monetary dispute arising out of a failed land transaction into a criminal case. It is further submitted that the complainant has subsequently furnished an affidavit stating that the applicant has no role in the alleged offence, which supports the applicant’s contention that there was no fraudulent inducement or dishonest intention on his part. There are 18 prosecution witnesses, none of whom has yet been examined before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant’s continued pre-trial detention is causing serious prejudice to his livelihood and profession; hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents; therefore, he is not entitled to be released on regular bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 10.05.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Sanjeev Manikpuri, involved in Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station - Cyber Police Thana Range Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 317(4), 238 of the BNS and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act, 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 she 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 5 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, 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 her in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of Six months from the receipt of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 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