1 CGHC010153862026 2026:CGHC:38402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3581 of 2026 Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Shani Mandir, Namnakala Nagar Ambikapur, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant MCRC No. 7749 of 2026 Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Shani Mandir, Namnakala Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur Dehat ( Gandhinagar) Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. --- Non-Applicant MCRC No. 7639 of 2026 Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta (Baleshwar Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Ordersheet) Aged About 44 Years R/o Datta Colony, Namnakala Ambikapur, Police Station - Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja (C.G.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.09.01 19:15:06 +0530 2 ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri SS Baghel, GA. For Objector : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Though the aforesaid bail applications arise out of different crime numbers, but considering that the applicant in aforesaid bail applications is same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3. MCRC No.3581/2026 arises out of Crime No.327/2025, registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC; MCRC No.7639/2026 arises out of Crime No.129/2025, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja for offence under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2) & 3 (5) of the BNS whereas MCRC No.7749/2026 arises out of Crime No.579/2025, 3 registered at Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja for offence under Sections 318 (4), 317 (4), 111 & 3 (5) of the BNS. 4. MCRC No. 3581 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that the complainant Indu Singh lodged a written report at Police Station - Gandhinagar alleging inter-alia that the applicant fraudulently prepared a fake agreement for sale by misrepresenting land owned by another person belonging to certain other individuals. On the pretext of selling the land, the applicant allegedly dishonestly received an amount of approximately Rs.78,97,000/- from the complainant and her family members on various dates between the years 2018 and 2022. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the police registered first information report bearing Crime No. 327/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and investigation was initiated. During investigation, accused was arrested, and following the completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 5. MCRC No. 7639 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that complainant Anil Ekka lodged a written report at Police Station Lakhanpar alleging inter-alia that the applicant and the co- accused cheated him by giving false assurance to him by opening a joint account and by transferring an amount of Rs.14,00,000/ through various transactions in the joint account. After receiving the complaint the concerned police investigated the matter and 4 found that the present applicant and co-accused Vishnuram committed cheating with the complainant through mule account. Thereafter the present applicant was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed. 6. MCRC No. 7749 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that complainant Sanjay Kumar Ekka lodged a written report at Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar) alleging inter-alia that the applicant and the co-accused cheated him by giving false assurance of providing loan to complainant and many other persons. Thereafter the present applicant and co-accused opened the account in the name of complainant and other persons, provided loan to them through the bank and thereafter when the loan amount is disbursed by the bank, the present applicant and co-accused took half of the loan amount by giving assurance that they are investing the said amount in their company, and transferred total amount of Rs.2,61,44,456/- through various transactions in their joint account. After receiving the complaint the concerned police investigated the matter and found that the present applicant and co-accused Vishnuram committed cheating to the complainant through mule account. Thereafter the applicant was arrested and after completion of investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence the bail applications. 7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in all the 5 crimes. Co-accused Vishnu Prajapati had withdrawn the entire amount and absconded from Ambikapur. Due to this, the complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant in this case. In fact, Vishnu Prajapati had been residing in Rangliot, a hill station in Darjeeling district, West Bengal, where he had taken a house on rent and entered into a 5-year lease agreement with Umesh Tamang for setting up an NV office. The challan has been filed and as per perusal of memorandum statement of present applicant he has specifically stated that, he has received the money from the complaint and after receiving the same he handed over the entire money to the co-accused Vishnu Prajapati, which clearly shows that, at the time of receiving the money the present applicant was not in knowledge regarding the said crime committed by co-accused Vishnu Prajapati. No money or documents have been recovered from the present applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case in a conspiratorial manner, solely on the basis of a false complaint, without conducting proper investigation. Co-accused Vishnu Prajapati was a main culprit and as per perusal of the entire Challan, he had obtained the money from the complainant through applicant and after knowledge of the applicant, he absconded from District Sarguja. The original agreement was possessed by the co-accused and only photo copy of agreement was in possession of the present applicant and only on the basis of friendship with co-accused, the complainant made a false 6 complaint against the present applicant. As per complaint made by the complainant, it is crystal clear that it is dispute of total civil in nature as the applicant obtained money for purchasing the land due to which the agreement was done between both the parties and if any dispute will arise for registration of sale-deed as per agreement, the civil court is a competent authority to decide the said dispute, whereas without proper investigated the matter, the concerned police registered the case against the present applicant. The offences which have been registered against the present applicant are not made out as the ingredients of the said offences are missing from the entire challan. The challan has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025, 6.1.2026 & 9.1.2026 in respective crime numbers and the main accused has died as per challan submitted by the concerned police, and the offences are triable by Magistrate and trial may take some time. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in all the cases. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant and learned counsel for the Objector would oppose the bail applications. However, learned State Counsel submits that more than Rs.2 crores have been transferred through various transactions in the joint account of the applicant and co-accused and looking to the manner in which the offence is committed, the applicant may not be released on bail. Moreover, the applicant has 5 criminal antecedents of similar nature viz. Crime 7 No.327/2025, for offence under Section 420, 467, 471/34 of the IPC; Crime No.628/2025 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC; Crime No.579/2025 for offence under Section 318 (4), 3 (5) of the BNS; Crime No.160/2026 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Crime No.129/2025 for offence under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS. Therefore, the present bail applications may be rejected. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 10.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and that the applicant has 5 criminal antecedents of similar nature viz. Crime No.327/2025, for offence under Section 420, 467, 471/34 of the IPC; Crime No.628/2025 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC; Crime No.579/2025 for offence under Section 318 (4), 3 (5) of the BNS; Crime No.160/2026 for offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Crime No.129/2025 for offence under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS and that the applicant seems to be a habitual offender, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail in all the cases. 11.Accordingly, the bail applications of applicant – Nikunj Gupta viz MCRC No.3581/2026 arises out of Crime No.327/2025, registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC; MCRC 8 No.7639/2026 arises out of Crime No.129/2025, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja for offence under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2) & 3 (5) of the BNS and MCRC No.7749/2026 arises out of Crime No.579/2025, registered at Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja for offence under Sections 318 (4), 317 (4), 111 & 3 (5) of the BNS, are rejected. 12.However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in all the cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve