1 2026:CGHC:2447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 249 of 2026 Rahul Yadav S/o Baleshwar Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Makarisar, Badali, District Sivan Pre. Add. Bhagwanpur, P.O. Gorkha Thana Kotra Road, Tah. And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. City Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. This is the 4rst bail application 4led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 571/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Sections 318 (4), of BNS. 2. Facts of the case are that it is revealed that on 03.11.2025, the complainant Sushil Pradhan lodged a written report against the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant alleging that the applicant, who is a broker, facilitated the deal relating to purchase, sale, and 4nancing of a TATA 4018 vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13-AB-9843. On 23.01.2025, 4nancing of the said vehicle was sanctioned in the name of the complainant through Shriram Finance Limited and a loan amount of Rs. 14,40,000/- was credited to his account. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the applicant towards down payment, out of which Rs. 80,000/- was paid on 13.01.2025 and Rs. 65,000/- was paid on 09.02.2025. Further, on 24.01.2025, the applicant got an amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- transferred from the complainant’s account to his own account through RTGS from Bandhan Bank, Raigarh, and the complainant himself withdrew an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- through his own cheque and paid the same to the applicant in cash. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 15,85,000/- was received by the applicant from the complainant; however, not a single rupee out of the said amount was paid to the seller, SAHA Coal, as a result of which the ownership of the vehicle could not be transferred in the name of the complainant. Consequently, the vehicle has been lying at Shankara Motors, Bilaspur (TATA Authorized Service Centre) for the last nine months. It is further revealed that on 24.07.2025, the applicant executed an agreement and aCdavit on an e-stamp paper, assuring that the matter would be resolved within one month; however, no resolution has been made till date. On the basis of these allegations, the present o:ence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an 3 innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that no o:ence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is made out against the applicant, even on a bare perusal of the allegations. The story put forth by the complainant is stated to be false and fabricated, as the vehicle in question remained in the possession of the complainant and the dispute, if any, has arisen out of a transaction between the seller and purchaser, which is purely civil in nature, and therefore no ingredients of cheating or forgery are attracted. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.11.2025, and the report was lodged with inordinate and unexplained delay. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been 4led in the present case and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is also urged that the applicant is ready and willing to return the amount received from the complainant and seeks repossession of the vehicle only for the purpose of settling the dispute, including clearing the outstanding bank loan, by reselling the vehicle. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail to enable him to amicably resolve the dispute within a reasonable period. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been 4led before the competent Court further the applicant has no criminal antecedent. Hence, it does not seem possible to grant bail to the applicant thus, his bail 4 application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the dispute appears to be of civil nature and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and he has been in judicial custody since 05.11.2025, further detention of the applicant is not necessary thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Rahul Yadav, involved in Crime No. 571/2025 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the o:ence punishable under Sections 318 (4), of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 4le an undertaking to the e:ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4xed 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 4xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suCcient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date 4xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 4xed 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 applicant is deliberate or without suCcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OCce is directed to send a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal