1 CGHC010317722026 2026:CGHC:36607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1334 of 2026 1 - Shubham Singhal S/o Navin Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years R/o Magneto Signature Homes, B-601, 6th Floor, Labhandi, Raipur, C.G. 2 - Jaya Singhal, W/o Shubham Singhal, D/o Rajendra Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Magneto Signature Homes, B- 601, 6th Floor, Labhandi, Raipur, C.G. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A For Objector : Mr. Kasif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.18 11:55:23 +0530 2 17.08.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.334/2026 registered at Police Station – Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 331(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Applicants are alleged to have induced the complainant to invest money by gaining her confidence, but failed to return the invested amount. It is further alleged that without her knowledge or consent, forged and fabricated documents were prepared and used as genuine documents with an intention to deprive her of her shareholding/interest and that the Applicants thereby committed cheating and fraud in respect of her invested amount and related documents. Based on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially civil and commercial in nature arising out of the 3 partnership business, wherein the Complainant was inducted as a partner and subsequently retired pursuant to reconstitution deeds duly executed and registered with the Registrar of Firms. It is further submitted that the Complainant had herself executed the partnership and banking documents, furnished her personal guarantee and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Applicant No.1 and that the reconstitution was also accepted by the concerned bank, which released her personal guarantee. It is contended that the Applicants had issued a legal notice dated 06.06.2026 seeking accounts and refund of excess withdrawals of about Rs.1.43 crores and the present FIR lodged thereafter is a counter-blast to the said notice and the existing commercial dispute. It is further submitted that the entire case is based upon documentary evidence, no custodial interrogation or recovery from the Applicants is required and Applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedents, whereas the only previous case against Applicant No.1 pertains to a CGST offence in which he has already been granted bail and has remained on bail for more than five years without any allegation of misuse of liberty. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicants may be granted 4 anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the Complainant oppose the bail application. Learned State Counsel submits that Applicant No.1 has three previous criminal antecedents and had earlier also been involved in an offence relating to GST fraud. Learned Counsel for the Complainant further submits that the Applicant had similarly acted fraudulently with his maternal uncle in relation to the partnership/business affairs. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the dispute arises out of the partnership business between the parties, the Complainant is the sister of Applicant No.1 and sister-in-law of Applicant No.2 and was inducted as a partner in the firms, the reconstitution deeds were duly executed and registered with the Registrar of Firms and the Complainant had also executed various banking documents in relation to the partnership, coupled with the fact that the allegations are substantially based upon documentary evidence, without further commenting anything upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicants. 5 6. 5 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants – Shubham Singhal and Jaya Singhal on executing a personal bond with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant/s 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 him/her/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant/s shall not involve himself/herself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya