Regular bail may be granted in cheating cases where the dispute is primarily civil (business transaction/dishonoured cheque), there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, and lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the receipt of the alleged funds.

Order on Board

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. 41/2025 registered at Police Station- Chhuikhadan, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by one Rekhchand Janghel alleging that his acquaintance, co-accused Hulas Kumar Sahu, who was working under the present applicant, owner of Dapcure Pharmaceutical Company, Raipur, induced him to invest money in the said company on the assurance that the invested amount would be doubled within one year along with an additional 30% profit from business sales. Acting upon such representations, the complainant met the present applicant and, under the alleged false pretext, paid a total sum of Rs.12,50,000/-, out of which Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on 17.05.2021 and another Rs.2,50,000/- on 13.01.2022 through PhonePe to the mobile number of co-accused Hulas Kumar Sahu, while the remaining Rs.7,50,000/- was paid in cash. It is further alleged that when the complainant approached the applicant on 01.03.2023 demanding return of his money, the applicant refused and subsequently executed an agreement on a Rs.20/- stamp paper citing business necessity, and issued a cheque bearing No. 000030, Account No. 36850100007393, for Rs.12,50,000/-, which was later dishonoured upon presentation. Thus, alleging cheating and fraudulent inducement, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant, hence, the present bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the FIR is an afterthought, lodged with an intention to extort money on the basis of a concocted story. He contends that even as per the prosecution case, the alleged amount was transferred to the co-accused, Hulas Kumar Sahu, and not to the present applicant, and there is no material to connect the applicant with the said transactions. It is also submitted that the dispute, at its core, arises out of an agreement and a dishonoured cheque issued for business purposes, which is purely civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC have been wrongly initiated to give a civil dispute a criminal colour. It is further submitted that the alleged transactions took place in May 2021 and January 2022, whereas the alleged refusal and issuance of cheque occurred in March 2023, but the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay on 03.02.2025, which renders the prosecution story doubtful. He also submits that there is no documentary evidence or receipt regarding the alleged cash payment of Rs.7,50,000/-, and the digital transactions were admittedly made to the co-accused only. It is also contended that the co-accused, being the primary recipient of the alleged amount, ought to have been considered in light of the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, whereas the present applicant is being unnecessarily incarcerated. Lastly, it is submitted that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026, and the charge sheet has not yet been s