2026:CGHC:8112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1598 of 2026 Pritam Tekriwal S/o Shri Narayana Prasad Tekriwal Aged About 39 Years R/o Flat No. 601, 6th Floor, Block- A, Jainam Planet, Dumartalab, AKHILESH D si i g g n it e a d l b y y Raipur C.G.

KUMAR AKHILESH DEWANGANKUMAR DEWANGAN ... Applicant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A.

For Objector(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

13/02/2026

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 20/2026 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons induced the complainant company to invest approximately Rs.11.51 crores in a proposed immovable property transaction by representing that the property was free from encumbrances and legally transferable. Pursuant to meetings and execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025, the complainant made payments through banking channels. It is alleged that the property was already mortgaged with financial institutions and was subject to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was deliberately concealed from the complainant. On this basis, the prosecution alleges that the accused acted with dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. Hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that identically situated co- accused, namely, Vinod Bajoria has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2026 in MCRCA No.167/2026. He also submits that the matter has already been amicably compromised between the parties. Copies of the compromise deed have been filed along with a covering memo. The applicant is in jail since 16.01.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly in connection with a proposed property transaction, misrepresented that the subject property was free from encumbrances and legally transferable, induced the complainant company to part with approximately Rs.11.51 crores under an Agreement to Sell, and concealed the fact that the property was already mortgaged and subject to recovery proceedings, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the objector admitted the said fact that the matter has already been amicably compromised between the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 16.01.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly misrepresented that the property was free from encumbrances and induced the complainant to pay Rs.11.51 crores, despite the property being mortgaged and under recovery proceedings, but considering the fact that the matter has already been amicably compromised between the parties, the sai