NIKUNJ GUPTA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010153862026 2026:CGHC:38402
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3581 of 2026
Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o Near
Shani Mandir, Namnakala Nagar Ambikapur, Police Station-
Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
MCRC No. 7749 of 2026
Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta Aged About 44 Years R/o Near
Shani Mandir, Namnakala Police Station Gandhinagar Ambikapur,
District Sarguja C.G.
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Ambikapur Dehat ( Gandhinagar) Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G.
--- Non-Applicant
MCRC No. 7639 of 2026
Nikunj Gupta S/o Balkeshwar Gupta (Baleshwar Wrongly Mentioned In
The Cause Title Of Ordersheet) Aged About 44 Years R/o Datta Colony,
Namnakala Ambikapur, Police Station - Gandhinagar, District - Sarguja
(C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE
Date:
2026.09.01
19:15:06
+0530
KRISHNA
KUMAR
BARVE

2
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Lakhanpur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant

For Applicant : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Shri SS Baghel, GA.
For Objector : Shri Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board

31/08/2026
1. Though the aforesaid bail applications arise out of different crime
numbers, but considering that the applicant in aforesaid bail
applications is same, they are being disposed of by this common
order.
2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail
to the applicant.
3. MCRC No.3581/2026 arises out of Crime No.327/2025,
registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja, for
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC; MCRC
No.7639/2026 arises out of Crime No.129/2025, registered at
Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja for offence under
Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2) & 3 (5) of the BNS whereas
MCRC No.7749/2026 arises out of Crime No.579/2025,

3
registered at Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar),
District Sarguja for offence under Sections 318 (4), 317 (4), 111 &
3 (5) of the BNS.
4. MCRC No. 3581 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that the
complainant Indu Singh lodged a written report at Police Station -
Gandhinagar alleging inter-alia that the applicant fraudulently
prepared a fake agreement for sale by misrepresenting land
owned by another person belonging to certain other individuals.
On the pretext of selling the land, the applicant allegedly
dishonestly received an amount of approximately Rs.78,97,000/-
from the complainant and her family members on various dates
between the years 2018 and 2022. Based on the aforesaid
complaint, the police registered first information report bearing
Crime No. 327/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
investigation was initiated. During investigation, accused was
arrested, and following the completion of the investigation, charge
sheet has been filed.
5. MCRC No. 7639 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that
complainant Anil Ekka lodged a written report at Police Station
Lakhanpar alleging inter-alia that the applicant and the co-
accused cheated him by giving false assurance to him by opening
a joint account and by transferring an amount of Rs.14,00,000/
through various transactions in the joint account. After receiving
the complaint the concerned police investigated the matter and

4
found that the present applicant and co-accused Vishnuram
committed cheating with the complainant through mule account.
Thereafter the present applicant was arrested and after
completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed.
6.
MCRC No. 7749 of 2026 : Case of the prosecution is that
complainant Sanjay Kumar Ekka lodged a written report at Police
Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar) alleging inter-alia that
the applicant and the co-accused cheated him by giving false
assurance of providing loan to complainant and many other
persons. Thereafter the present applicant and co-accused
opened the account in the name of complainant and other
persons, provided loan to them through the bank and thereafter
when the loan amount is disbursed by the bank, the present
applicant and co-accused took half of the loan amount by giving
assurance that they are investing the said amount in their
company, and transferred total amount of Rs.2,61,44,456/-
through various transactions in their joint account. After receiving
the complaint the concerned police investigated the matter and
found that the present applicant and co-accused Vishnuram
committed cheating to the complainant through mule account.
Thereafter the applicant was arrested and after completion of
investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence the bail
applications.
7. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in all the

5
crimes. Co-accused Vishnu Prajapati had withdrawn the entire
amount and absconded from Ambikapur. Due to this, the
complainant has falsely implicated the present applicant in this
case. In fact, Vishnu Prajapati had been residing in Rangliot, a hill
station in Darjeeling district, West Bengal, where he had taken a
house on rent and entered into a 5-year lease agreement with
Umesh Tamang for setting up an NV office. The challan has been
filed and as per perusal of memorandum statement of present
applicant he has specifically stated that, he has received the
money from the complaint and after receiving the same he
handed over the entire money to the co-accused Vishnu
Prajapati, which clearly shows that, at the time of receiving the
money the present applicant was not in knowledge regarding the
said crime committed by co-accused Vishnu Prajapati. No money
or documents have been recovered from the present applicant.
The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case in a
conspiratorial manner, solely on the basis of a false complaint,
without conducting proper investigation. Co-accused Vishnu
Prajapati was a main culprit and as per perusal of the entire
Challan, he had obtained the money from the complainant
through applicant and after knowledge of the applicant, he
absconded from District Sarguja. The original agreement was
possessed by the co-accused and only photo copy of agreement
was in possession of the present applicant and only on the basis
of friendship with co-accused, the complainant made a false

6
complaint against the present applicant. As per complaint made
by the complainant, it is crystal clear that it is dispute of total civil
in nature as the applicant obtained money for purchasing the land
due to which the agreement was done between both the parties
and if any dispute will arise for registration of sale-deed as per
agreement, the civil court is a competent authority to decide the
said dispute, whereas without proper investigated the matter, the
concerned police registered the case against the present
applicant. The offences which have been registered against the
present applicant are not made out as the ingredients of the said
offences are missing from the entire challan. The challan has
been filed and the applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025, 6.1.2026 &
9.1.2026 in respective crime numbers and the main accused has
died as per challan submitted by the concerned police, and the
offences are triable by Magistrate and trial may take some time.
Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in all the
cases.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non-
applicant and learned counsel for the Objector would oppose the
bail applications. However, learned State Counsel submits that
more than Rs.2 crores have been transferred through various
transactions in the joint account of the applicant and co-accused
and looking to the manner in which the offence is committed, the
applicant may not be released on bail. Moreover, the applicant
has 5 criminal antecedents of similar nature viz. Crime

7
No.327/2025, for offence under Section 420, 467, 471/34 of the
IPC; Crime No.628/2025 for offence under Section 420 of the
IPC; Crime No.579/2025 for offence under Section 318 (4), 3 (5)
of the BNS; Crime No.160/2026 for offence under Section 420 of
the IPC and Crime No.129/2025 for offence under Sections 318
(4), 319 (2), 111 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS. Therefore, the present bail
applications may be rejected.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and that
the applicant has 5 criminal antecedents of similar nature viz.
Crime No.327/2025, for offence under Section 420, 467, 471/34
of the IPC; Crime No.628/2025 for offence under Section 420 of
the IPC; Crime No.579/2025 for offence under Section 318 (4), 3
(5) of the BNS; Crime No.160/2026 for offence under Section 420
of the IPC and Crime No.129/2025 for offence under Sections
318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS and that the applicant
seems to be a habitual offender, this Court is not inclined to
release the applicant on bail in all the cases.
11. Accordingly, the bail applications of applicant – Nikunj Gupta viz
MCRC No.3581/2026 arises out of Crime No.327/2025,
registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Sarguja, for
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC; MCRC

8
No.7639/2026 arises out of Crime No.129/2025, registered at
Police Station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja for offence under
Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 111 (2) & 3 (5) of the BNS and MCRC
No.7749/2026 arises out of Crime No.579/2025, registered at
Police Station Ambikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), District Sarguja
for offence under Sections 318 (4), 317 (4), 111 & 3 (5) of the
BNS, are rejected .
12. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall
make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in all the cases
as expeditiously as possible within a period of 6 months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with
law, if there is no legal impediment.
-
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Barve