Anticipatory bail granted where the disputed vehicle was recovered and no further custodial recovery was required.

The applicant filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 275/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The complainant alleged that he intended to sell his Glanza car for ₹5,11,000 to meet his mother’s medical expenses. On 07 September 2025, the applicant took him to Raipur and introduced him to co-accused Sanjay Mahananda as the purchaser. After execution of the sale agreement and delivery of the vehicle, the complainant received only ₹60,000, while ₹4,51,000 remained unpaid despite repeated demands

The applicant contended that there was no allegation that he had received or retained the unpaid sale consideration, that the vehicle had been recovered and released to the complainant on supurdnama on 02 July 2026, and that no further recovery was required from him

The State opposed the application

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating and liability arising from participation in the criminal act

In deciding anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the need for custodial recovery, and the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation

The relief was made subject to statutory and judicial safeguards against influencing witnesses, obstructing a fair trial, non-appearance, and repetition of similar offences

The Court considered the allegations and the material in the case diary, but found that the vehicle forming the subject matter of the transaction had already been recovered and released to the complainant on supurdnama

The applicant asserted that he had neither received nor retained the unpaid sale consideration and that no further recovery was required from him

Balancing these circumstances against the nature of the alleged cheating and the State’s opposition, the Court concluded that custodial detention was not necessary at that stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it held that the applicant deserved the protection of anticipatory bail

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Vijay Sidara be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and involvement in any similar offence in the future