BABLU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010336392026 2026:CGHC:38821
NAFR
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.09.03
11:03:30 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8067 of 2026
1 - Bablu S/o Late Badan Khan Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Karra,
Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o Gora Bazar, District-
Jabalpur, (M.P.)
2 - Amur Khan S/o Natthu Khan Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Karra,
Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o Gora Bazar, District-
Jabalpur, (M.P.)
3 - Ameen Khan S/o Hakeem Khan Aged About 41 Years R/o Village
Karra, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o Gora Bazar,
District- Jabalpur, (M.P.)
4 - Habeem Khan S/o Darbar Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Karra, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o Gora Bazar,
District- Jabalpur, (M.P.)
5 - Shahrukh Khan S/o Naseem Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Karra, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o Gora Bazar,
District- Jabalpur, (M.P.)
6 - Mohammad Achchan S/o Mohammad Eliyas Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Karra, Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Permanent R/o
Rajpur, Rajakpur, District- Amroha (U.P.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kota, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)

2
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection
with Crime No.524/2026, registered at Police Station- Kota,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
318(4), 61(2), 112, 308 and 3(5) of the BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant,
Ramnarayan Singh Porte, lodged a report alleging that on
22.06.2026, the applicants approached him after coming to know
that he was searching for a JCB for levelling his agricultural land
situated at Village Navagaon, Charapara. The applicants allegedly
assured the complainant that they would get the levelling work
done through a JCB and, on such assurance, received an
advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, while the remaining
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was brought by the complainant’s son
from Punjab National Bank, Kota Branch. It is alleged that, instead
of carrying out the agreed work, the applicants dishonestly
obtained a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and
thereafter fled away. On the basis of the said allegations, the

3
complainant lodged a report at Police Station Kota on 27.06.2026,
pursuant to which the applicants were arrested on 02.07.2026 and
an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was allegedly seized from them. After
completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet
against the applicants for the alleged offence. It is further stated
that the complainant has received the aforesaid amount pursuant
to the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Kota,
District Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It
is contended that the applicants had commenced the levelling
work through a JCB on approximately three acres of the
complainant’s agricultural land, however, a dispute subsequently
arose regarding payment, as the complainant allegedly sought
completion of the entire work for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and was
unwilling to pay any further amount for the work undertaken. It is
further contended that the complainant himself prevented the
applicants from continuing and completing the work and thereafter
lodged a false and frivolous complaint against them, despite an
agreement having been executed between the parties. It is also
submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and
executed an agreement dated 17.07.2026, pursuant to which the
complainant applied for release of the seized amount and
ultimately received Rs.9,00,000/- on supurdnama vide order dated
23.07.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Kota, District Bilaspur.

4
So far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned,
the applicant has three criminal antecedents out of which, he has
already been granted bail by this Court in two of the cases as
explained in para 4(A) of the bail application. It is further
submitted that applicant are languishing in jail since 02.07.2026
and though the charge-sheet has already been filed, the
conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time hence, they
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. The learned State counsel, opposing the bail application, would
submit that there is sufficient material available against the
applicants to establish their involvement in the alleged offence
and that the applicants, on the pretext of getting the complainant’s
agricultural land levelled through a JCB, dishonestly obtained a
sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from him and failed to perform the promised
work. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed
after completion of the investigation and, therefore, considering
the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected
during investigation, the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged
on bail merely on the ground that the amount has subsequently
been released to the complainant on supurdnama. Hence, the bail
application deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of
allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that the

5
dispute appears to have arisen in connection with the agreement
for levelling of the complainant’s agricultural land through a JCB,
the submission regarding the compromise entered into between
the parties, and particularly considering that the amount of
Rs.9,00,000/-, allegedly involved in the offence, has been
released in favour of the complainant on supurdnama pursuant to
the order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Kota,
District Bilaspur, coupled with the fact that the applicants are in
custody since 02.07.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been
filed, thereby dispensing with the requirement of their further
custodial interrogation, and further considering that the conclusion
of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion
that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly,
without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present bail
application is allowed .
7. Let applicants, Bablu, Amur Khan, Ameen Khan, Habeem
Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Mohammad Achchan , involved in
Crime No.524/2026, registered at Police Station- Kota, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),
61(2), 112, 308 and 3(5) of the BNS, be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond (each) with two local sureties
(each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the
effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the
dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are

6
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 applicants 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
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence
proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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

7
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.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Manpreet