1 2026:CGHC:19613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2697 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Raj Narayan Panday Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Kedarpur Tiwari Building, P.S. Ambikapur Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Applicant Father Name Is Wrongly Mentioned In Annex. A/1) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 661/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written complaint against the present applicant alleging that the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 applicant induced him to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque as advance consideration for purchase of land bearing Khasra No. 993/1, admeasuring 0.1300 hectares, situated at Village Morbhanj, Tahsil Latori, District Surajpur. It is alleged that the applicant represented himself to be the power of attorney holder of the said land and assured that he was competent to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. On the basis of such representation, the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque No. 065793 with the understanding that the sale deed would be executed upon payment of the remaining amount. However, the applicant neither executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant nor refunded the amount and instead sold the said land to third parties. It further transpired that the land in question actually belongs to one Meena and Devpati, and the applicant had merely obtained an unregistered power of attorney from them, on the basis of which he falsely represented ownership and authority to sell. Upon inquiry, the complainant discovered that no valid title or authority existed in favour of the applicant. Despite repeated demands, the applicant avoided repayment of the amount. Thus, the applicant, by dishonestly misrepresenting his authority over the property and inducing the complainant to part with money, has prima facie committed cheating, constituting an offence punishable under Section 319 of the B.N.S., hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the alleged date of incident mentioned in the 3 FIR is 21.07.2022, whereas the FIR bearing No. 0661/2025 has been lodged on 17.09.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 3 years and 2 months, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. He further submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and the wife of the applicant has already paid the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- before the SHO, P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja, and Rs.50,000/- each through UPI transactions dated 23.02.2026 to the complainant’s wife, namely Ravindra Kaur. It is also submitted that the complainant has executed an affidavit dated 23.02.2026 acknowledging receipt of the entire amount and has submitted the same before P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), copies of which are annexed as Annexure A/4 and A/5. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 23.02.2026 and till date the charge-sheet has not been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has prima facie committed a serious offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing the complainant to part with Rs.2,00,000/- on the false pretext of selling land over which he had no valid title or authority, as the alleged power of attorney was unregistered and the property belonged to other persons. It is further submitted that the 4 applicant not only failed to execute the sale deed but also sold the said land to third parties, clearly demonstrating his fraudulent intention from the very inception. He further contends that despite repeated demands, the applicant avoided repayment, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. It is also submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents and is involved in two other cases, which reflects his habitual conduct. Considering the gravity of the offence, nature of allegations, and antecedents of the applicant, it is prayed that the bail application of the applicant 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, the nature of allegations, and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and further the fact that though the allegations pertain to cheating in respect of a land transaction, it is not disputed that the FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay of about three years, which casts a doubt on the prosecution story. Further, though the charge sheet has not yet been filed, but the applicant is in jail since 23.02.2026 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. It is also pertinent to note that the entire alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has already been repaid to the complainant and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, which is supported by an affidavit of the complainant. In such circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, 5 this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Rajesh Kumar Pandey, involved in Crime No. 661/2025 registered at Police Station- Kotwali Ambikapur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 6 the date fixed 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 fixed 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 sufficient 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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan