MANAV CHANDRA SINGH vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010341682026 2026:CGHC:39102
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1447 of 2026
1 - Manav Chandra Singh S/o Shri Rameshchandra Singh Aged About
33 Years R/o House No.LIG-7, Vaishali Nagar, Near Satyam Bakery
Vaishali Nagar, Tehsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Utai,
District- Durg Chhattisgarh,
Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Digajmaan Sandhu and Mr. Shikhar
Bakhtiyar, Advocates
For Respondent-State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG
For Respondent-Objector Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
03.09.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by
the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No.411/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District
Digitally
signed by
R NIRALA

2
Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2),
318 (3), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338 & 340 of BNS.
2. The prosecution story arises out of an application preferred by
the complainant B.B. Singh, Partner of A.B.B.S. Stone Crusher,
before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District
Durg, under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. It is the case of the complainant that an
Agreement to Sell in respect of certain land parcels situated at
Village Chhata, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, together with heavy
mining machinery and an operational stone crusher plant, was
executed in his favour by the co-accused Smt. Rita Singh
through her husband Ramesh Chandra Singh and that
substantial consideration was paid thereunder. It is alleged that
notwithstanding receipt of the consideration, registered sale
deeds were not executed in respect of all the agreed parcels, that
certain parcels stood recorded in the names of third persons or
comprised government leasehold land and that certain
documents were prepared and signatures used without his
consent. Upon the said application, the Ld. Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Patan, vide order dated 31.07.2026, directed
registration of a criminal case. Pursuant thereto, Police Station
Utai, District Durg (C.G.) registered FIR bearing Crime
No.411/2026 dated 02.08.2026 against the applicant and the co-
accused persons for the aforesaid offence.

3
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question.
It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case arises out
of a single commercial transaction dated 29.02.2024 for
purchase of a property, which was executed between the co-
accused Smt. Rita Singh, who is mother of the present applicant
and the complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.4.50
Crores (Rupees Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs) but the present
applicant is nowhere party to the said agreement and only the
amount of Rs.2,90,00,000/- was received by the applicant. It is
further submitted that the applicant has already transferred the
some part of the land to the complainant by executing a sale
deed on 01.10.2025 bearing Khasra No.20/02 in favour of the
complainant and copy of B1 & PII of the said document has
already been filed before this Court by a covering dated
03.09.2026, which is annexed with the bail application. It is
further submitted that the entire property is in possession of the
complainant party even after selling the same to the applicant
and his family members, as such the dispute between the parties
is of civil nature and can be resolved before the Civil Court but
the same has been given criminal colour and the applicant is
ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this
Court while granting bail to the applicant and no useful purpose
would be served if the applicant is sent behind the bars.

4
Therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector vehemently
opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the
pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the applicant
paid a substantial amount towards the agreed consideration for
purchase of the land, machinery and crusher plant.
Subsequently, discrepancies regarding the ownership and
transferability of the properties came to light, and despite
receiving a substantial amount, the applicant neither completed
the transaction nor returned the amount received. It is further
submitted that after registration of crime against the applicant,
the applicant filed the anticipatory bail application before the
learned Session Court, the learned Session Court after perusal of
the application and case diary, rejected the bail application of the
applicant. Thereafter the applicant/accused filed the anticipatory
bail application before this Court. The Applicant had earlier
challenged the very same FIR before this Court by filing CRMP
No.2173 of 2026 seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential
proceedings. After considering the material placed before it, this
Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 19.08.2026.
The Court specifically noticed the allegations concerning the
manner in which the applicant dealt with various parcels of land
and movable properties and represented their authority to
transfer the same. The Court further noticed that a substantial

5
amount of approximately Rs.4,39,50,000/- was paid by the
complainant against the agreed consideration of
Rs.4,50,00,000/-. This Court further held that the disputed
questions relating to ownership, authority, documents and
alleged dishonest intention require investigation and cannot be
decided at the threshold. Pursuant to the transaction between the
parties, the objector had paid a total amount of approximately the
Applicant towards the agreed Rs.24,39,50,000/- to sale
consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- The said payments were made
through banking channels on different dates and the details of
the same are duly reflected in the bank statement of the objector.
Despite receiving almost the entire agreed consideration, the
applicant failed to complete the transaction and also failed to
return the amount received from the Objector. In view of the
aforesaid circumstances, the investigation is still going on and
the relevant documents, financial transactions and other material
are yet to be properly examined. the applicant may not be
released on anticipatory bail.
5. Learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose
the bail application of the applicant and submit that on the
complaint of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate
directed the police station concerned to register a crime against
the applicant and the co-accused, thereafter a case was
registered against the applicant and the co-accused and the
investigation is already going on as such custody of the applicant

6
may be required by the Investigating Agency, therefore, the
applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation levelled against the present applicant and further
considering that out of total sale consideration of Rs.4.50 Crores
(Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs), the applicant has received an
amount of Rs.2.90 Crores (Two Crores Ninety Lakhs) by way of
cheque and other online method and rest amount has been
received by the co-accused and out of the said sale
consideration, the applicant has already transferred the some
part of the land to the complainant by executing a sale deed on
01.10.2025 bearing Khasra No.20/02 and copy of B1 & PII of the
said document has already been filed before this Court by a
covering memo dated 03.09.2026 and also for the fact that the
complainant is still in the possession of the entire sale property,
therefore, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that
in the event of arrest of the applicant – Manav Chandra Singh,
on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and one
surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer,
he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

7
“(a) 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 fact to the
Court.
(b) the applicant shall not act in any manner which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to him/her by the said
Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of
his/her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard
full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it,
which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) the applicant shall not involve himself/herself in
any offence of similar nature in future.
(f) the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation of
the case.”
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Nirala