1 CGHC010353222026 2026:CGHC:41282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8424 of 2026 1 - Indrajeet Singh S/o Harnek Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Mig-829, Housing Board, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.1253/2026, registered at Police Station Supela, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 243, 318(2), 318(3) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023. NIRMALA RAO 2 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant, who was the owner of a house, agreed to sell the same to the complainant party by way of an agreement to sell dated 28.11.2024 for a total consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/-, and received a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as advance. Subsequently, the present applicant sold his house to one Vishal Singh by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2026. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence/FIR was registered by the complainant, Sunderlal Patel, against the present applicant, and he was arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime. 3) Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the applicant has already refunded Rs. 34,82,250/- to the complainant party. He would further submit that the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature, and that the complainant ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. He would also submit that the applicant has been in jail since 27.8.2026. Thus, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. He would submit that although the present applicant had agreed to sell his property to the complainant, he subsequently sold it to someone else. He would submit that the application deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the fact that the applicant entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant on 28.11.2024 and 3 subsequently sold his property to someone else by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2026, and further considering that he has refunded a sum of Rs. 34,82,250/- out of Rs. 50,00,000/- received from the complainant, that he has been in jail since 27.8.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b) he 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi