1 2026:CGHC:19686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2700 of 2026 Sukhvinder Singh Kadiyala S/o Late Tarsem Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No. 23 F, Road No. 29 B, Shiv Mandir Road Sector - 7, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. 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. 41/2025 registered at Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by one Rekhchand Janghel alleging that his acquaintance, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 co-accused Hulas Kumar Sahu, who was working under the present applicant, owner of Dapcure Pharmaceutical Company, Raipur, induced him to invest money in the said company on the assurance that the invested amount would be doubled within one year along with an additional 30% profit from business sales. Acting upon such representations, the complainant met the present applicant and, under the alleged false pretext, paid a total sum of Rs.12,50,000/-, out of which Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 17.05.2021 and another Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.01.2022 through PhonePe to the mobile number of co-accused Hulas Kumar Sahu, while the remaining Rs.7,50,000/- was paid in cash. It is further alleged that when the complainant approached the applicant on 01.03.2023 demanding return of his money, the applicant refused and subsequently executed an agreement on a Rs.20/- stamp paper citing business necessity, and issued a cheque bearing No. 000030, Account No. 36850100007393, for Rs.12,50,000/-, which was later dishonoured upon presentation. Thus, alleging cheating and fraudulent inducement, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant, 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 and has no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the FIR is an afterthought, lodged with an intention to extort money on the basis of a concocted story. He contends that even as per the prosecution case, the alleged amount was transferred to the co-accused, Hulas Kumar Sahu, and not to the 3 present applicant, and there is no material to connect the applicant with the said transactions. It is also submitted that the dispute, at its core, arises out of an agreement and a dishonoured cheque issued for business purposes, which is purely civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC have been wrongly initiated to give a civil dispute a criminal colour. It is further submitted that the alleged transactions took place in May 2021 and January 2022, whereas the alleged refusal and issuance of cheque occurred in March 2023, but the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay on 03.02.2025, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. He also submits that there is no documentary evidence or receipt regarding the alleged cash payment of Rs.7,50,000/-, and the digital transactions were admittedly made to the co-accused only. It is also contended that the co-accused, being the primary recipient of the alleged amount, ought to have been considered in light of the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, whereas the present applicant is being unnecessarily incarcerated. Lastly, it is submitted that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026, and the charge sheet has not yet been submitted, 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 4 has prima facie committed a serious offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing the complainant to invest a substantial amount of Rs.12,50,000/- on the false promise of doubling the investment along with additional profit, and thereafter failing to return the same. It is contended that the applicant, in connivance with the co- accused, played an active role in luring the complainant and later issued a cheque which was dishonoured, clearly reflecting fraudulent intention from the very inception. The State further submits that a significant portion of the amount was paid in cash and the remaining through digital transactions linked to the co- accused, which establishes a coordinated act. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner in which the complainant was deceived, and the role attributed to 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 the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and further the fact that though the allegations pertain to cheating involving an investment of Rs.12,50,000/-, but it is evident that a substantial part of the amount was transferred to the co- accused and there is no direct material to show that the same was received by the present applicant. Further, the alleged transactions took place in the years 2021 and 2022, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 03.02.2025 after an inordinate and unexplained delay, 5 which casts a doubt on the prosecution story, and though the charge sheet has not yet been filed, but the applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Additionally, the dispute appears to have elements of a civil nature arising out of a business transaction and a dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, 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 of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Sukhvinder Singh Kadiyala, involved in Crime No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 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 6 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 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