##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6273

NAFR

KUNAL

DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Digitally

signed by

KUNAL

DEWANGAN

MCRC No. 1203 of 2026

Sandeep Lakra S/o Samaylal Lakra Aged About 33 Years R/o Singitana,

P.S. Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant(s)

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Of Police Station

Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Non-Applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate.

For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

04/02/2026

1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail

to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime

No. 343/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District-

Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 201,

467, 468 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the pretext of selling

land admeasuring 35 dicmil, the present applicant allegedly

received a sum of ₹25,00,000/– from the complainant, partly in cash

2

and partly through online transactions, during the period from

26.04.2022 to 25.04.2024. However, no documentary proof of such

transactions forms part of the charge-sheet, and the police have

only included a typed statement of payment prepared by the

complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an offence

under Section 420 IPC (cheating) has been registered against the

applicant in connection with Crime No. 343/2025. Thereafter,

investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet has been filed

before the competent Court for the said offence.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

The first alleged transaction dates back to 26.04.2022, and as per

the prosecution story, the alleged cheating continued until

25.04.2024; however, no explanation has been provided as to why

the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than one year. It is also

submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The

complainant has merely produced a typed statement of alleged

transactions, whereas the investigating agency has made no effort

to seize the passbook or obtain the bank account statement of the

applicant, which would have revealed whether any such transaction

actually took place. In the absence of cogent documentary

evidence, the allegations remain unsubstantiated. Therefore, the

applicant prays for grant of bail.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits

that the applicant induced the complainant on the pretext of selling

3

land and dishonestly obtained ₹25,00,000/–, thereby committing a

serious offence of cheating involving a substantial amount. The

investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been

filed and the material collected during investigation supports the

prosecution case and further the applicant has one criminal

antecedent of the year 2013 under the Gambling Act. Considering

the nature of the allegations, the manner of cheating and the gravity

of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation

against the applicant relates to an amount of ₹25,00,000/– allegedly

taken on the pretext of sale of land, however, no primary

documentary proof of the alleged transactions forms part of the

charge-sheet and only a typed statement of the complainant has

been filed. The alleged transactions span from 2022 to 2024, yet

the FIR was lodged after considerable delay without proper

explanation. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet

has been filed, thus further custodial detention is not required. The

applicant has no significant criminal antecedents except one old

Gambling Act case of 2013.