Settlement and repayment in a commercial payment dispute warranted grant of regular bail despite pending investigation.

The applicants, proprietors of Maa Shakumbari Sponge Pvt. Ltd., were arrested in Crime No. 493/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant, proprietor of Jai Hanuman Coal Depot, alleged that he supplied coal through 26 trucks between 15 July 2023 and 4 August 2023 but did not receive the full consideration, despite subsequent demands through WhatsApp messages dated 25 June 2026 and 1 July 2026.

The applicants contended that the dispute concerned the quality of the coal, that approximately ₹40,00,000 had already been paid between 19 July 2023 and 21 November 2023, and that the remaining ₹17,60,493 was paid on 19 August 2026.

The complainant thereafter acknowledged receipt of the entire amount and expressed unwillingness to pursue the case.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

This was the applicants’ first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the established bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the circumstances of the transaction, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, period of custody, likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The alleged offences were Sections 318(4), 316(5) and 3(5) of the BNS; the applicants specifically argued that cheating and criminal breach of trust were not made out because there was no dishonest intention and no entrustment of property.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court treated the dispute as arising principally from the quality and payment of coal supplied, rather than as a clear case of fraudulent inducement or criminal breach of trust.

It gave weight to the fact that ₹40,00,000 had already been paid, the balance had subsequently been paid, and the complainant had acknowledged full receipt and expressed unwillingness to pursue the matter.

The applicants had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 19 August 2026, and applicant No. 1 was 75 years old.

Although the charge-sheet had not been filed, the Court considered the applicants’ age, the settled nature of the dispute, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time sufficient to justify release on bail.

Bail was subject to conditions, including no unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, appearance before the trial court, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.