Anticipatory bail granted where commercial property dispute was predominantly civil and complainant retained possession.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 411/2026 registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg, for offences under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution arose from a complaint under Section 175 BNSS alleging that the complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase land, mining machinery and a stone-crusher plant from co-accused Rita Singh, the applicant’s mother, through her husband. Although approximately ₹4.39 crore was allegedly paid against an agreed consideration of ₹4.50 crore, the sale was not completed in respect of all properties, and allegations were made regarding third-party ownership, government leasehold land and unauthorised use of documents and signatures.

The Magistrate directed registration of the case on 31 July 2026, pursuant to which the FIR was registered on 2 August 2026.

The applicant contended that he was not a party to the agreement, had received only ₹2.90 crore, had executed a sale deed dated 1 October 2025 concerning Khasra No. 20/02, and that the complainant remained in possession of the property, making the dispute essentially civil in nature.

The Sessions Court had rejected his anticipatory-bail application, and his earlier petition seeking quashing of the FIR had also been dismissed by the High Court on 19 August 2026.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person has reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged offences were those under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail must be determined on the overall facts, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s role, the surrounding circumstances of the transaction, and the necessity of custodial detention, without expressing a final opinion on the merits.

The Court considered the allegations concerning the incomplete transfer of property and the applicant’s alleged receipt of ₹2.90 crore, but also took into account that the applicant had executed a sale deed dated 1 October 2025 for part of the land and that the complainant remained in possession of the entire property.

These circumstances supported the applicant’s contention that the dispute arose from a commercial property transaction and reduced the immediate justification for custodial arrest.

Without adjudicating the disputed questions of ownership, authority, documents or dishonest intention, the Court concluded that the facts justified protection under Section 482 BNSS.

The Court therefore treated custodial detention as unnecessary at that stage, while preserving the investigation through conditions requiring cooperation and non-interference.

In the event of arrest, Manav Chandra Singh be released on executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions that he would not influence witnesses, prejudice a fair trial, fail to appear before the trial court, commit a similar offence, or obstruct the investigation, and that he would cooperate with the investigating agency.