[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hitesh Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
VAISHALI
LUCKY 2026:CGHC:12696
NAGARIA
Digitally signed by
NAFR
VAISHALI LUCKY
NAGARIA
Date: 2026.03.18
17:15:43 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 398 of 2026
1 - Hitesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Suresh Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o
Ward No. 16, Nehru Park Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - Ritesh Agrawal S/o Suresh Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No.
16, Nehru Park Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy.G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
17/03/2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the
applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with
Crime No.18/2026 registered at Police Station - Pathalgaon, District:
Jashpur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),
336(3), 338, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicants who are the
real brothers have committed an offence under section 3(5) and
318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The F.I.R. was lodged inter
alia on the allegations that Hitesh alias Sonu is a proprietor of M/s
Shyam Metal Products and Ritesh alias Monu is a proprietor M/s
Shyam Industries. The Complainant is the Brother-in-law of Hitesh
(he is maternal brother of wife of Hitesh). They are related to each
other. In 2023, Hitesh who is engaged in the business of Steel
Furniture have made a proposal to the complainant for joint business
of supply. In February 2024, the firm of the complainant M/s Arya
Steels was awarded the contract of supply of the steel furniture from
District Program Officer for amounting to Rs.32,26,578/-, Rs.
4,13,707/-. The applicant Hitesh has requested the complainant to
pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Kanha Industries for purchase of the
raw materials, the said amount was transferred to the account of the
Kanha Industries. It has been further alleged that, total sum of Rs.
7,86,000/- was obtained through his Brother-in-Law, the same was
paid by the applicants herein, even after getting the entire amount of
consideration of the above-mentioned contract only Rs. 7,86,000/-
has been paid.It has been alleged that, total Rs.20,00,000/- were
paid by Ritesh (Rs.5,00,000/- advance payment made for raw
material and share in the final amount of consideration of the supply
of total Rs. 4,74,000/- Total Rs.9,74,000/-) and Rs. 10,00,000/-
were paid as loan amount. Accused Ritesh has demanded Rs.
23,52,314/- including interest through what's app massage. It has
been alleged that, against the payment/in lieu of the payment which
was due to be paid to Ritesh the complainant has given Jaggery
amounting to Rs.10,26,000/- was given to Ritesh so that the account
will be closed. Again a Jaggery of Rs. 60,00,000/- was given to the
applicants but despite of repeated requests payments have not been
made. The social meeting was held and in the said meeting 2 cheques
dated 10.11.2025 amounting to Rs. 19,30,290 and 09.11.2025
amounting to Rs. 39,73,530/- were issued but both the cheques were
bounced due to closer of the accounts. ANNEXURE A/2 is the copy of
F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted applicants are innocent
and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
contended that complainant is a brother-in-law of the applicant No.1
and both the parties are related to each other and there was a
business transaction, just to avoid the payment which was to be
made the accused persons the FIR has been lodged just to create
pressure on the applicants to solve the disputes. He also submits
that complainant himself has admitted that the accused persons
have paid sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and out of the said amount
Rs.10,00,000/- have been adjusted towards the amount of
consideration of the joint business and Rs.10,00,000/- were paid as
loan and he has given the jaggery of Rs.10,00,000/- to settle down
the account, but not a single document with regard to supply of
jaggery of Rs.10,00,000/- was filed, there is no receipt, no bill was
produced, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also
entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non -
applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of
learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, also
considering the fact that the dispute between the parties arises out of
a business transaction and the parties are closely related, the
complainant being the brother-in-law of applicant No.1, and also
keeping in view that the allegation regarding supply of jaggery worth
₹10,00,000/- by the complainant is not supported by any
documentary evidence such as bills or receipts. Thus, at this stage,
the dispute appears to be predominantly civil in nature, arising out of
financial dealings between the parties, therefore, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in
the event of arrest of the applicant No.1 - Hitesh Kumar Agrawal
and applicant No.2 - Ritesh Agrawal, 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) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) The applicant 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
their 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) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaishali
