Mere non-performance of a sale agreement is a civil dispute and does not constitute cheating.

The applicant sought a second regular bail application in connection with Crime No. 171/2022 involving several IPC sections, including 420 (cheating) and 467 (forgery).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others induced the complainant to pay an advance of Rs. 55 lakhs for agricultural land totaling Rs. 3.04 crores.

Although the agreement dated 01.04.2021 noted that the sale required prior Collector permission (as the applicant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe), the complainant alleged the land was subsequently sold to third parties and he was threatened when seeking a refund.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.12.2024.

His first bail application was dismissed with liberty to revive after the complainant's statement; however, the trial has been stalled for six months due to a judicial vacancy.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the transaction and the prolonged delay in the trial.

2. Whether the dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature, thereby negating the criminal intent required for the alleged offences.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the grant of regular bail.

It relied on the precedent established in Radheshyam & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311), which holds that mere non-performance or refusal of an agreement to sale does not constitute the offence of cheating.

The Court adhered to the principle that prolonged pretrial incarceration due to administrative delays (such as court vacancies) warrants a favorable consideration for bail.

The Court observed that the dispute prima facie appeared to be a failed civil transaction regarding immovable property.

It noted that the inclusion of the requirement for the Collector's permission in the agreement suggests a lack of fraudulent intent at the inception of the contract.

The investigation is complete, and the final report has been submitted, reducing the risk of evidence tampering.

Regarding the applicant’s criminal history, the Court accepted that the applicant had been acquitted in one previous case and another had been quashed.

Crucially, the Court emphasized that the trial had not progressed for six months because of a vacancy in the trial court, and there was no immediate prospect of it being filled.

Given the applicant's age (62 years), his socio-economic status, and the absence of a substantial criminal past, the Court found no compelling reason for continued incarceration.

The Court held that the contentions regarding the civil nature of the dispute had merit and that the trial would take a significant time to conclude.

The bail is subject to several conditions, including regular court attendance, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or witnesses.