1 CGHC010341712026 2026:CGHC:39103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1449 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rita Singh W/o Shri Rameshchandra Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o House No.LIG-7, Vaishali Nagar, Near Satyam Bakery Vaishali Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, (C.G.) Applicant (s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Utai, District- Durg, (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Digajmaan Sandhu and Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG For Respondent-Objector Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03.09.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.411/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (3), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 & 340 of BNS. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution story arises out of an application preferred by the complainant B.B. Singh, Partner of A.B.B.S. Stone Crusher, before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District Durg, under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is the case of the complainant that an Agreement to Sell in respect of certain land parcels situated at Village Chhata, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, together with heavy mining machinery and an operational stone crusher plant, was executed in his favour by the applicant Smt. Rita Singh through her husband Ramesh Chandra Singh and that substantial consideration was paid thereunder. It is alleged that notwithstanding receipt of the consideration, registered sale deeds were not executed in respect of all the agreed parcels, that certain parcels stood recorded in the names of third persons or comprised government leasehold land and that certain documents were prepared and signatures used without his consent. Upon the said application, the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, vide order dated 31.07.2026, directed registration of a criminal case. Pursuant thereto, Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.) registered FIR bearing Crime No.411/2026 dated 02.08.2026 against the applicant and the co- accused persons for the aforesaid offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case arises out 3 of a single commercial transaction dated 29.02.2024 for purchase of a property, which was executed between the applicant Smt. Rita Singh, who is mother of the present applicant and the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.4.50 Crores (Rupees Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs) and the co- accused Manav Chandra Singh, who is the son of the applicant, has already transferred the some part of the land to the complainant by executing a sale deed on 01.10.2025 bearing Khasra No.20/02 in favour of the complainant and copy of B1 & PII of the said document has already been filed before this Court by a covering dated 03.09.2026, which is annexed with the bail application. It is further submitted that the entire property is in possession of the complainant party even after selling the same to the applicant and his family members, as such the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and can be resolved before the Civil Court but the same has been given criminal colour and the applicant is a lady, aged about 58 years, and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to the applicant and no useful purpose would be served if the applicant is sent behind the bars. Therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the applicant and the co-accused paid a substantial amount towards the agreed 4 consideration for purchase of the land, machinery and crusher plant. Subsequently, discrepancies regarding the ownership and transferability of the properties came to light, and despite receiving a substantial amount, the applicant and the co-accused neither completed the transaction nor returned the amount received. It is further submitted that after registration of crime against the applicant, the applicant filed the anticipatory bail application before the learned Session Court, the learned Session Court after perusal of the application and case diary, rejected the bail application of the applicant and the bail application of the co-accused Manav Chandra by way of CRMP No.2173 of 2026 seeking quashing of the FIR has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2026. It is further submitted that the disputed questions relating to ownership, authority, documents and alleged dishonest intention require investigation and cannot be decided at the threshold. Pursuant to the transaction between the parties, the objector had paid a total amount of approximately the Applicant towards the agreed Rs.24,39,50,000/- to sale consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- The said payments were made through banking channels on different dates and the details of the same are duly reflected in the bank statement of the objector. Despite receiving almost the entire agreed consideration, the applicant and the co-accused failed to complete the transaction and also failed to return the amount received from the Objector. In view of the aforesaid 5 circumstances, the investigation is still going on and the relevant documents, financial transactions and other material are yet to be properly examined. the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submit that on the complaint of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the police station concerned to register a crime against the applicant and the co-accused, thereafter a case was registered against the applicant and the co-accused and the investigation is already going on as such custody of the applicant may be required by the Investigating Agency, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the present applicant and further considering that the applicant is a lady, aged about 58 years and the co-accused Manav Chandra Singh, who is the son of the applicant, has already transferred some part of the land in favour of the complainant by executing a sale deed on 01.10.2025 and also for the fact that the complainant is still in the possession of the entire sale property, therefore, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Smt. Rita Singh, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- “(a) the applicant 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) the applicant shall not involve himself/herself in any offence of similar nature in future. (f) the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation of the case.” Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Nirala