PRAFULL AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010430432026 2026:CGHC:46565
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1828 of 2026
Prafull Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 60 Years
R/o House No. 74, Green Avenue, Daldal Seoni, Mowa, Raipur District
Rapiur Chhattisgarh. (Sivni And Mova Spelling Wrongly Mentioned In The
Ordersheet Annexure A/1). ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
Hathband, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh)
...Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Khare, Senior advocate, with Mr. Priyank
Agrawal and Abhishkek Chandra, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
03/11/2026
1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory
bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.
209/2026 registered at Police Station - Hathband, Tehsil Simga,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 61(2), 201, 336, 338, 339, 340(2),
111 and 3(5) of the BNS.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant obtained an
Agriculture Infrastructure Term Loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Crores Only) from UCO Bank, Main Branch, Raipur
(hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 18.12.2025 for the
purpose of polyhouse-based orchid cultivation, by mortgaging
agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 380/36, admeasuring 4.047
hectares, and 380/37, admeasuring 0.405 hectares, situated at
Village Mohbhatta, Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the said land"). It is
alleged that, at the time of sanction of the loan, the applicant
concealed the fact that proceedings for acquisition of the said land
had been proposed under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. It is further alleged that the acquisition proposal had
been recorded in the revenue records on 28.05.2025 and that the
Bank sanctioned the loan without properly examining the relevant
records. It is also alleged that the complainant's office had
requested the Bank to remove the mortgage over the said land;
however, the mortgage had not been removed from the revenue
records as on the date of lodging of the complaint. The prosecution
further alleges that the proposed polyhouse had not been
constructed on the said land.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He
further submits that, from the reasons assigned in the FIR, it
appears that the date 28.05.2025 has been presumed to be the
date of issuance of the notification for acquisition of the land.

3
However, on the said date, no preliminary notification under
Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
Act, 2013, had been issued. He further points out that the
notification under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 was issued on
13.04.2026, which has been placed on record as Annexure A-8.
He also submits that, as envisaged under sub-section (4) of
Section 11 of the Act of 2013, owner of the land, which is the
subject matter of the preliminary notification, is restrained from
carrying out any transaction in respect thereof only after issuance
of the notification under Section 11(1). In the present case, the
loan was sanctioned on 18.12.2025, much prior to the issuance of
the aforesaid notification; therefore, no offence, has been
committed by the applicant. He further points out that the loan was
initially sanctioned in two accounts, amounting to Rs. 8 Crores and
Rs. 2 Crores, respectively, out of which an amount of Rs. 6 Crores
was initially disbursed in favour of the applicant. He contends that
the entire loan amount has been repaid and, in this regard, a
certificate dated 09.10.2026 has been issued by the concerned
Bank, i.e., UCO Bank, Raipur. He submits that the applicant will
co-operate in the investigation.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that,
from the contents of the FIR, it is clearly reflected that the
notification was issued on 28.05.2025, and only thereafter, the
loan was sanctioned on 18.12.2025. In support of his contention,
he refers to two memorandums dated 28.05.2025.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary as well as the documents enclosed with the bail application.

4
6. Perusal of Annexure A-8 would show that it is a notification issued
by the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, on 13.04.2026 under
Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013, declaring the preliminary
notification in respect of the lands situated at Village Mohbhatta,
Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara , for the purpose of
acquisition for industrial purposes. The documents referred to by
learned State counsel are memorandums issued by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue) to the Sub-Registrar, Simga. These
documents are not notifications issued under Section 11(1) of the
Act of 2013, they are communications issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer to the Sub-Registrar, Simga, informing him about the
proceedings proposed to be initiated for acquisition of the land and
further stating that no transfer of the land would be permissible
after issuance of the notification.
7. Upon being specifically asked about the repayment of the loan
amount, learned State counsel fairly submits, on the basis of
instructions received, that the loan amount sanctioned in favour of
the applicant has been repaid.
8. Considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the allegations, copy of the notification issued under
Section 11(1) of the Act of 2013 on 13.04.2026 enclosed with the
application, and the fact that the loan amount has already been
repaid, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I
am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.
9. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question

5
(209/2026 ), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer
arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by the
following conditions:
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when
required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal
of the trial.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
JUDGE
vaibhav