Anticipatory Bail Denied in Property Transaction Case Where Substantial Consideration Paid Reflected Dishonest Intent to Cheat

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 545/2025 registered at Police Station Telibandha.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s family members (including his father, Ashraf Ali Sheikh) entered into an agreement to sell a house property in Raipur for Rs. 83,00,000/-.

The complainant paid Rs. 62,20,000/-, yet the accused allegedly failed to execute the sale deed within the 11-month stipulated period, made further illegal demands, and avoided registration.

The applicant contended he was merely a witness to the agreement, not a party or mediator, and argued the matter was a civil dispute being given a criminal color.

He further noted that co-accused persons had been granted regular bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his role in the transaction.

The Court considered the provisions for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The substantive offences alleged were under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court weighed the principles of judicial discretion in bail matters, specifically looking for a prima facie case of dishonest intention and the gravity of the involvement in the alleged fraud.

The Court examined the case diary and the specific conduct of the accused parties. Although the applicant claimed to be a mere witness, the Court found that a substantial sum (Rs. 62,20,000/-) had been collected without the execution of the sale deed.

The Court reasoned that the failure to fulfill the agreement coupled with additional illegal demands indicated a prima facie dishonest intention to cheat the complainant.

The Court distinguished the applicant's position from co-accused who received regular bail, noting that the conduct attributed to the accused reflected "active involvement" in the cheating process, which outweighed the applicant’s arguments regarding the civil nature of the dispute or lack of criminal antecedents.

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.