DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010331392026 2026:CGHC:38336

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7963 of 2026
Deepak Kumar Shrivas S/o Prakash Narayan Shrivas Aged About 48
Years R/o Geevra Basti, Contractor Mohalla, Police Station - Kusmunda,
Korba, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Near Paddy Market, Ramkrishna
Nagar, Mopka, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
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. 125/2025 registered at Police Station-
Balco, District - Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Gouri
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Shankar Sahu, submitted a written report alleging that the
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
applicant, on the pretext of securing and providing a government
job to the complainant’s daughter, had taken a sum of
Rs.5,50,000/- from him on 04.07.2020. It is alleged that despite
receiving the aforesaid amount, the applicant failed to secure or
provide the promised government employment. 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
submitted that there is a substantial delay in lodging the FIR,
inasmuch as the alleged transaction is stated to have taken place
on 04.07.2020, whereas the written report was lodged only on
05.03.2025. It is further submitted that the dispute between the
parties arises out of a transaction concerning an agreement to sell
dated 19.10.2021, whereby the applicant had paid a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant in respect of certain parcels of
land situated at Village Rishda, Tahsil and District Korba. He
submits that subsequently, upon making enquiries regarding the
complainant’s power of attorney and the title of the land, the
applicant came to know that there was a serious dispute concerning
the said property and that the particulars of the original owner
mentioned in the power of attorney were also found to be doubtful.
Thereafter, the applicant demanded return of his money and, when
the same was not returned, he himself submitted a complaint before
the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 18.02.2025, followed by
further applications before the police authorities. It is contended that
thereafter, the complainant lodged the present report against the

3
applicant on 05.03.2025, which indicates that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated as a counterblast to the applicant’s
complaint. It is further submitted that, as per the police report filed
before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, serious
doubts were also raised regarding the genuineness of the power of
attorney relied upon by the complainant. He also submits that the
applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent under the IPC
and the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.1007/2024, and he is in jail since 09.08.2026,
the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court 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 counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the
allegation against the applicant is serious in nature, inasmuch as he
is alleged to have induced the complainant to part with a substantial
amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on the assurance of securing and
providing a government job to the complainant’s daughter. It is
further submitted that the applicant has dishonestly obtained the
aforesaid amount from the complainant and, despite receiving the
same, failed to fulfil the assurance so given. He also submits that
the defence taken by the applicant regarding the subsequent
agreement to sell and the alleged dispute concerning the power of
attorney are matters which require appreciation of evidence during
trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail. He

4
further submits that the applicant has 02 previous criminal
antecedents. It is further contended that the delay in lodging the
report, by itself, does not demolish the prosecution case,
particularly when the allegations disclose commission of an offence
punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, he
prays for rejection of the bail application.
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
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the
material available on record, this Court finds that the alleged
transaction relates to the year 2020, whereas the written report was
lodged only on 05.03.2025, after a considerable delay. It is also
evident that prior thereto, the applicant had submitted a complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Korba on 18.02.2025, alleging
non-return of the amount paid by him in connection with the
agreement to sell dated 19.10.2021 and raising a dispute regarding
the genuineness of the power of attorney and title of the land. Thus,
the existence of a prior complaint by the applicant and the
subsequent lodging of the report by the complainant are
circumstances which require consideration. Further the applicant
has two previous criminal antecedents out of which one case is
under the IPC and the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1007/2024. Further
considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 09.08.2026, the

5
charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court
and trial is likely to take some more time, therefore, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the
Applicant – Deepak Kumar Shrivas , involved in Crime No.
125/2025 registered at Police Station- Balco, District - Korba,
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal
bond with two local 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

6
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