1 CGHC010341682026 2026:CGHC:39102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1447 of 2026 1 - Manav Chandra Singh S/o Shri Rameshchandra Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o House No.LIG-7, Vaishali Nagar, Near Satyam Bakery Vaishali Nagar, Tehsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Applicant (s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Utai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.411/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2), 318 (3), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 & 340 of BNS. 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 co-accused 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 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 of a single commercial transaction dated 29.02.2024 for purchase of a property, which was executed between the co- accused 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) but the present applicant is nowhere party to the said agreement and only the amount of Rs.2,90,00,000/- was received by the applicant. It is further submitted that 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 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. 4 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 paid a substantial amount towards the agreed 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 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. Thereafter the applicant/accused filed the anticipatory bail application before this Court. The Applicant had earlier challenged the very same FIR before this Court by filing CRMP No.2173 of 2026 seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. After considering the material placed before it, this Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 19.08.2026. The Court specifically noticed the allegations concerning the manner in which the applicant dealt with various parcels of land and movable properties and represented their authority to transfer the same. The Court further noticed that a substantial 5 amount of approximately Rs.4,39,50,000/- was paid by the complainant against the agreed consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/-. This Court further held 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 failed to complete the transaction and also failed to return the amount received from the Objector. In view of the aforesaid 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 6 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 out of total sale consideration of Rs.4.50 Crores (Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs), the applicant has received an amount of Rs.2.90 Crores (Two Crores Ninety Lakhs) by way of cheque and other online method and rest amount has been received by the co-accused and out of the said sale consideration, 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 and copy of B1 & PII of the said document has already been filed before this Court by a covering memo dated 03.09.2026 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. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Manav Chandra 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, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 7 “(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