[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Dhritlahare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11435
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 360 of 2026
Rohit Dhritlahare S/o Bhav Singh Dhritlahare Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 41, Laxmipara, Ward No. 03, Devgaon Khauna, Tehsil Kharora,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
versus
Date: 2026.03.11
10:37:42 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Saraswati Nagar,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
10.03.2026
1.
This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who
is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.20/2026,
registered at Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, District. Raipur (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Sections under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3) and 61(2) of the BNS 2023.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, a report was made on the
allegation that the accused persons induced the complainant company
in connection with a proposed immovable property transaction to part
with substantial sums of money on the assurance that the property
was free from encumbrances and legally transferable. Pursuant to
meetings between the parties, an Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2025
was executed and payments totaling approximately Rs.11.51 crores
were made through banking channels. It is further alleged that the
property was already mortgaged with financial institutions and was
subject to recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, a
fact allegedly suppressed from the complainant, there by causing
wrongful loss to the complainant. Based on these allegations, offences
u/s 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as mentioned above
were registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
contended that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face
value, no offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of the
BNS, 2023 is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted
that the applicant is neither the director, promoter, shareholder nor the
seller of the property in question and had merely acted as a broker
connecting the buyer and the seller, without receiving any money or
benefit from the execution of the sale agreement. It is also submitted
that the FIR has not been registered against the present applicant and
there is no allegation therein regarding his involvement in any
conspiracy with the seller. Learned counsel further submits that the
co-accused Vinod Bajorai has already been granted anticipatory bail
vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 167/2026, and
other co-accused namely Shri Narayan Prasad Tekriwal, Pritam
Tekriwal and Pankaj Tekriwal have been granted regular bail vide
orders dated 13.02.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 1605/2026,
1598/2026 and 1565/2026 respectively. It is also submitted that the
dispute between the parties has already been amicably compromised,
as reflected in the bail orders of the co-accused persons. It is further
contended that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
required, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant
is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the present applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute
and the material available on record, and further taking into
consideration the fact that co-accused Vinod Bajorai has already been
granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.02.2026 passed in
MCRCA No. 167/2026 and the other co-accused, namely Shri
Narayan Prasad Tekriwal, Pritam Tekriwal and Pankaj Tekriwal, have
been granted regular bail vide orders dated 13.02.2026 passed in
MCRC Nos. 1605/2026, 1598/2026 and 1565/2026 respectively, this
Court is inclined to extend the benefit of parity to the present
applicant. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the present bail application is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in
the event of arrest of the applicant - Rohit Dhritlahare , on executing
a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of
the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following
conditions:-
(a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the
Court.
(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his
adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo
having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be
verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of
similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Vaibhav
