Anticipatory bail granted in cheating case citing unexplained delay and absence of fraudulent intent.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 0085/2026 involving alleged offenses under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused Rakesh Mandal misrepresented themselves as partners in a firm to help the complainant secure a house under the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) scheme.

The complainant transferred Rs. 50,000 via UPI to the applicant on 08/07/2024, as part of a total alleged fraud of Rs. 7,10,000.

The FIR was registered on 20.03.2026 following a direction from the JMFC, Raipur, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

The applicant contended the dispute was civil/commercial, and the primary dealings were with the co-accused.

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

It considered Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding the offense of cheating, noting the requirement of "fraudulent or dishonest intention" at the inception of the transaction.

The court also referenced the principle that custodial interrogation for offenses punishable by up to seven years should not be a matter of course unless demonstrably necessary.

The court evaluated the applicant's defense that the essential ingredients of cheating were absent because the transaction was rooted in a failed commercial arrangement rather than a criminal conspiracy.

The court noted the significant "unexplained delay of nearly twenty months" between the alleged incident (July 2024) and the filing of the FIR (March 2026), suggesting a possible attempt to exert financial pressure.

It further observed that the applicant’s involvement was limited to a solitary UPI transaction of Rs. 50,000, which the applicant claimed was a personal loan repayment from a co-accused.

Given the applicant's status as a permanent resident and his willingness to cooperate, the court found no immediate necessity for custodial interrogation or risk of absconding.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and providing one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with trial, and verification of Aadhaar credentials.