1 CGHC010331422026 2026:CGHC:38368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8019 of 2026 1. Nirmalchand Kothari S/o Late Shri Umedchand Kothari, Aged About 58 Years R/o Kamthi Line Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 2. Nalin Kothari S/o Late Shri Umedchand Kothari Aged About 52 Years R/o Kamthi Line, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .. Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 398/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 386, 420, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.09.01 11:12:23 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case arising out of Crime No. 398/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, for offences punishable under Sections 386, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, it is alleged that on 25.11.2021, the complainant, Rohit Kumar Sahu, and his late father approached Applicant No. 1 for a loan of Rs. 5,11,000/- at an agreed rate of interest of 2% per month. As security for the said loan, the complainant’s father executed a registered sale deed in favour of Applicant No. 1 in respect of 40 decimals of land bearing Khasra No. 138/6, upon which their ancestral house was situated. It is further alleged that the complainant and his father handed over blank signed stamp papers along with 12 blank cheques, out of which 5 belonged to the father, 5 belonged to the complainant, and 2 belonged to his brother. It is alleged that the applicants, by deceitfully getting the land mutated in their favour, coerced the complainant’s family into paying interest at the rate of 6% per month and unlawfully extracted an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month for five months, totalling Rs. 1,50,000/-, along with further instalments amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-. Subsequently, a settlement was arrived at, pursuant to which the complainant arranged a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, comprising a bank draft of Rs. 20,00,000/- financed through one Mohammad Shad and Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, for the purpose of purchasing back the entire 40 decimals of land. However, despite allegedly receiving the entire payment on 10.03.2023, the applicants are alleged to have executed and registered a sale deed in respect of only 12 decimals of land in favour of the complainant and deceitfully retained the remaining 28 decimals. The prosecution further alleges that the applicants subsequently extorted an additional amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- from the complainant by issuing death threats and 3 threatening to institute false cheque-bounce cases by misusing the security cheques. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the entire dispute arises out of an admitted loan transaction, execution of registered sale deeds, and property-related arrangements, and is essentially civil in nature. The complainant has given a criminal colour to a purely civil and financial dispute. The parties have amicably settled their disputes by executing a voluntary Settlement Agreement dated 01.08.2026, wherein the complainant has expressly recorded his “No Objection” to the grant of bail to the applicants. The settlement was also communicated to the concerned Police Station and the Superintendent of Police. He further submits that, in view of the subsequent settlement, the applicants filed their second bail application on 14.08.2026; however, the learned trial Court rejected the same on 17.08.2026, primarily on the conjecture that the applicants had exerted pressure upon the complainant while in judicial custody, despite there being no material or complaint alleging any such intimidation. He also submits that the learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the settlement merely on the ground that Mudit Kothari, a close relative of the applicants, had signed the settlement on their behalf without a separate authorization letter. The absence of such formal authorization is, at best, a curable procedural defect and cannot, by itself, discredit a voluntary settlement. He submits that the allegations under Section 420 IPC arise out of a longstanding financial transaction, in connection with which the registered sale deed and security cheques were admittedly executed. The essential ingredient of dishonest intention from the inception is a matter requiring strict proof during trial. He further submits that the 4 allegation under Section 386 IPC is also doubtful, as the FIR itself discloses continuing financial and property transactions between the parties over a considerable period, including registration of 12 decimals of land in March 2023, which prima facie militates against the allegation of extortion by immediate threat of death. He further submits that the alleged initial transaction took place on 25.11.2021, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 12.01.2026, after an unexplained delay of nearly five years, which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution version and indicates that the criminal proceedings have been initiated as a pressure tactic. The complainant voluntarily entered into the Settlement Agreement dated 01.08.2026 and subsequently chose not to press his objection to the bail application before the learned trial Court. The inference of coercion or intimidation drawn merely from the withdrawal of the objection is wholly conjectural and unsupported by any material. He submits that the allegation regarding misuse of blank cheques is misconceived. Initiation of proceedings for dishonour of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, in accordance with law, cannot, by itself, constitute extortion or criminal intimidation. The dispute concerning the alleged rent agreements and recovery of rent is also essentially civil/rent- control in nature. Applicant Nirmalchand Kothari had already approached the competent Rent Control Authority for recovery of unpaid rent relating to the disputed premises. He further submits that the applicants are not illegal money lenders and that the transaction was supported by registered documents. The allegation regarding charging interest at 6% per month instead of the agreed 2% is primarily based on the complainant’s allegation and is a matter for trial. The prosecution case is substantially based upon documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds, bank drafts, and cheques, which are already available on 5 record. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation or recovery from the applicants is required. He further submits that the applicants have two criminal antecedents, however, in one case, they has already been acquitted, while the other is pending trial, both of which have been explained in Part D of the present bail application. He submits that the applicants have been in custody since 26.07.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicants have two criminal antecedents and, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the objector opposes the bail application of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the dispute arises out of a financial and property transaction, and that although the charge- sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court, the parties have subsequently entered into a voluntary settlement, wherein the complainant has expressed his “No Objection” to the grant of bail, further the fact that the applicants have been in jail since 26.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants – Nirmalchand Kothari and Nalin Kothari, involved in Crime No. 398/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 386, 6 420, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to 7 treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 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 Abhishek