1 2026:CGHC:17279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 547 of 2026 Vaishnav Tandi S/o Pandav Tandi Aged About 40 Years R/o Garba Maidan, Samta Colony, Police Station Azad, Chowk, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, (Commissionerate) District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Shri Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Soumya Rai, Dy.G.A. For complainant : Ms. Muskaan Fatwani & Shri Shahil Singh, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application 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.192/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, Raipur, (Commissionerate), District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5) & 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.04.16 12:13:37 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on 26.03.2026 in respect of the incident alleged to have been occurred on 23.04.2025. The F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Vinit Jain inter alia on the allegations that, he entered into a sale agreement with Vaishnav Tandi (applicant herein) and Roopnath Sahu. It has been alleged that, Roopnath Sahu is the registered owner of the subject property bearing Khasra No. 161/5 area 0.4580 hectare, situated at village Khorpa, Abhanpur, Raipur. It has been alleged that, agreement was executed on 03.01.2024 between. Roopnath (the original owner) and Vaishnav Tandi for the aforesaid land bearing Khasra No. 161/5 area 0.4580 hectare. Second agreement 23.04.2025 between the complainant and Roopnath and Vaishnav Tandi for sale of 0.279 hectare of land, out of 0.4580 hectare, for a consideration of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-In pursuance of the said agreement, an advance amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- was paid to Vaishnav Tandi and as per the agreement, the remaining amount of the sale consideration was to be paid on the date of the execution of the sale deed. Rs. 1,00,000/- cash was also alleged to have been paid, in total Rs. 36,00,000/- has been paid towards the part performance. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 22.07.2025 but despite of repeated request, sale deed has not been executed. It has been alleged that, subsequently the complainant has enquired from various persons and on due enquiry, he came to know that, the dispute in respect of the subject land is going on with Lalit Kumar Sahu and due to the said dispute, no title would have been transferred. It has been further alleged that, neither the sale deed has been executed nor the amount of the part performance has been refunded. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was an agreement to sale of the property but the complainant did not execute the agreement within the time stipulated for which a legal notice was also sent and reply was also made but the complainant did not turn up to execute the agreement and he is also ready to execute the sale deed. He would submit that the order of the civil court and revenue court are passed in favour of the brother of the applicant and the property is not disputed property. He would further submit that the applicant is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of absconding, the applicant undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State as also learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, it appears that the dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement to sale of property, the contention of the applicant that the complainant failed to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time and that he is still ready and willing to execute the sale deed, lends support to the prima facie civil nature of the dispute, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant –Vaishnav Tandi, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he 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 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 by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 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 in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri