GIRDHARI PRASAD AGRAWAL @ G.P. AGRAWAL @ GIRIRAJ AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010342312026 2026:CGHC:39070
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8204 of 2026
1. Girdhari Prasad Agrawal @ G.P. Agrawal @ Giriraj Agrawal S/o
Late Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 75 Years R/o Y-6 Civil
Township Rourkela Odisha
2. Ramchander Shaw S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Shaw Aged About 51
Years R/o L L L-6 Civil Township Rourkela, Odisha
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Police
Station Kotwali, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
03.09.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 493/2026 registered at Police Station :
Kotwali, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’)
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the proprietor
of Jai Hanuman Coal Depot, whereas the applicants are the
proprietors of Maa Shakumbari Sponge Pvt. Ltd. According to the
complainant, during the period from 15.07.2023 to 04.08.2023, he
supplied coal through 26 trucks to the applicants’
proprietorship/private limited company; however, the complainant
did not receive the consideration amount from the applicants.
Thereafter, the complainant requested the applicants to make the
payment, but the payment was delayed on the part of the
applicants. Subsequently, on 25.06.2026 and 01.07.2026, the
complainant informed the applicants through WhatsApp messages
regarding the outstanding payment, however, the applicants failed
to make the payment. Consequently, the complainant lodged a
report alleging cheating against the applicants on 18.07.2026, on
the basis of which the police registered the case and arrested the
applicants. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submits that there was no intention to cheat the complainant and
that the dispute arose solely on account of the quality of the coal
supplied, pursuant to which a lesser amount was initially paid. As
reflected from the ledger of the applicants’ company, an amount of
Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid to Jai Hanuman Coal Depot between
19.07.2023 and 21.11.2023. The complainant neither issued any
notice nor raised any demand regarding the alleged outstanding
amount and, instead, directly lodged the report. Subsequently, the

3
dispute was settled, the entire outstanding amount was paid, and
the complainant executed an affidavit acknowledging receipt of the
complete payment and expressing his unwillingness to pursue the
case. In this regard, an amount of Rs. 17,60,493/- was paid through
the bank account of Maa Shakumbari Sponge Private Limited on
19.08.2026 towards the cost of coal and transportation charges.
Thus, no amount remains outstanding. He further submits that the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not made out, as there was no
entrustment of any property belonging to the complainant. At the
highest, the matter involves a dispute regarding the quality of the
coal supplied, which, particularly after substantial payment having
already been made and the entire dispute having subsequently
been settled, cannot constitute the alleged criminal offences. Out of
the total consideration of approximately Rs. 42,00,000/-, an amount
of Rs. 40,00,000/- had already been paid by the applicants in
installments between 19.07.2023 and 21.11.2023. He submits that
the applicants are respectable and established businessmen,
carrying on the business of manufacturing iron sponge through their
private limited company. He also submits that applicant No. 1 is 75
years of age, suffering from multiple health ailments and undergoing
treatment, while applicant No. 2 is an income-tax assessee. The
applicants have no criminal antecedents and have been in custody
since 19.08.2026. Since the trial is likely to take some time, further
detention of the applicants is neither necessary nor justified. Hence,
he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants.

4
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the
respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the
charge-sheet has not yet been filed in the present case before the
competent Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute
appears to have arisen out of a transaction relating to the quality
and payment for the coal supplied. A substantial amount of Rs.
40,00,000/- had already been paid, and the remaining amount has
subsequently been paid, pursuant to which the complainant has
acknowledged receipt of the entire payment and expressed his
unwillingness to pursue the matter. The applicants have no criminal
antecedents and have been in custody since 19.08.2026. Though
the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, considering the advanced
age of the applicants, the nature of the dispute, the subsequent
settlement between the parties, and the likelihood of the trial taking
considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the
present applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail in this
case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed .
8. Let the Applicants - Girdhari Prasad Agrawal @ G.P. Agrawal @
Giriraj Agrawal and Ramchander Shaw, involved in Crime No.
493/2026 registered at Police Station : Kotwali, Ambikapur, District
- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),
316(5) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on

5
bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and one surety (which should be family member), subject to the
following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their 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 their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
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

6
opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are
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 them in
accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Rahul Dewangan