2026:CGHC:961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 21 of 2026 Dharmendra Yadav S/o Shri Chhabil Kumar Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Near Shakti Chowk, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil Digitally AKHILESH signed by KUMAR AKHILESH DEWANGANKUMAR DEWANGAN And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate.

For Objector : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

07/01/2026

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. 289/2025 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant, Dr. Santosh Singh Thakur, entered into an agreement dated 14.02.2024 with the accused for construction of a residential house at the agreed rate of Rs.1,400 per sq. ft. The complainant obtained a home loan of Rs.70,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Bilaspur, and between February 2024 and 28.04.2025, transferred a total amount of Rs.42,31,000/- to the accused through online transactions (NEFT/UPI) into the account of R.R. Construction. Despite receiving the said amount, the accused failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period, used substandard materials contrary to the contractual terms, demanded additional money on false pretexts, and thereafter stopped the construction work midway. It is further alleged that the accused closed his office, switched off his mobile phone, absconded, and neither completed the construction nor refunded the amount received. Hence, the bail application. 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 the alleged case arises purely out of a contractual and civil dispute relating to construction of the building, including issues of payment, quality of material, and time schedule. The dispute is inherently civil in nature, but due to misunderstanding or wrong advice, it has been wrongly given a criminal colour. He also submits that the applicant never had any dishonest intention or intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception of the agreement. The amount received was utilised towards the construction work itself, and any delay, if at all, was neither intentional nor deliberate. The applicant is in jail since 28.11.2025, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2024 under Section 64 of the BNS, further charge-sheet has not 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.

Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have received Rs.42,31,000/- for construction of a residential house, failed to complete the work within the agreed period, used substandard materials, demanded additional money on false pretexts, stopped the construction midway, and thereafter absconded without completing the construction nor refunded the amount. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent pertaining to the year 2024, registered under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and in the said case, after being granted bail, the applicant absconded and has neither completed the construction work nor refunded the amount received, therefore, the applicant is not entitled