[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Manikant Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                              1




KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                                                             2026:CGHC:13190
Digitally
signed by
                                                                         NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                   MCRCA No. 423 of 2026


            1 - Manikant Singh S/o Late Ramashankar Singh Aged About 48 Years
            Both Resident Of K /173, Kali Mandir Road, Hunuman Nagar, Kankar
            Bagh Patna, Bihar
            2 - Shushma Singh W/o Manikant Singh Aged About 45 Years Both
            Resident Of K /173, Kali Mandir Road, Hunuman Nagar, Kankar Bagh
            Patna, Bihar
                                                                  ... Applicant(s)
                                           versus


            State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,police Station
            Mohan Nagar,durg, (C.G.)
                                                               ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Dr. Pratyush Nandan along with Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2026

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the

applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with

Crime No. 405/2022 registered at Police Station - Mohan Nagar,

District- Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

120-B, 34, 406, 409 & 420 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Praveen

Rai, lodged a written report at Police Station- Mohan Nagar

alleging that he was acquainted with co-accused Manikant, who

used to handle financial transactions related to his business, and

through him he came into contact with Chandan and Ramanand

Sharan (Baba), all of whom were stated to be close associates. It

is alleged that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their

common intention, induced the complainant by representing that

they could arrange a loan of Rs.25 crores through a financier, for

which an initial processing fee of Rs.12,00,000/- was demanded,

and further insisted that an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- be paid to

Ramanand Sharan (Baba) as a prerequisite for sanction of the

said loan. Relying upon such representations, an agreement

dated 18.01.2021 was executed, pursuant to which the

complainant paid Rs.10,50,000/- himself and an additional

Rs.8,50,000/- through his brother Anil Rai, while a total sum of

Rs.22,00,000/- was received by Manikant and Chandan partly

through banking channels and partly in cash. However, despite

receipt of the aforesaid amounts, the accused persons failed to

arrange the promised loan of Rs.25 crores and, upon being

requested to return the money, deliberately avoided the

complainant and switched off their mobile phones, thereby prima

facie reflecting dishonest intention from the very inception. On

these allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and

common intention, a case has been registered against the

accused persons under Sections 420, 409, and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code at Police Station- Mohan Nagar, and the investigation

is presently underway.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations

made in the FIR are wholly false, frivolous, and concocted, and

the applicants have been deliberately implicated with an oblique

motive. It is submitted that, in fact, the complainant Praveen Rai

along with his brothers Anil Rai and Sunil Rai are themselves

involved in large-scale fraudulent activities and have cheated

several persons, including the present applicants. Learned

counsel submits that the complainant and his brothers are

habitual offenders having multiple criminal antecedents across

different States, as reflected from various FIRs and complaint

cases instituted against them for offences under Sections 406,

420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as

well as proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, involving substantial amounts running into crores

of rupees, copies of which are annexed with the bail application. It

is further pointed out that in one of the earlier cases lodged by the

complainant himself, the police has already filed a closure report

upon finding the allegations to be false, thereby seriously denting

the credibility of the present prosecution. It is thus urged that the

present FIR is nothing but a counterblast, lodged to pressurize the

applicants and to avoid repayment of huge outstanding liabilities.

4. It is further submitted that the true facts are entirely contrary to the

prosecution version. The applicants had developed business

relations with the complainant and his brothers, who projected

themselves as established businessmen and directors of Orbit

Electromech India Pvt. Ltd., and induced the applicants and their

associates to invest large sums of money on the assurance of

lucrative returns and execution of genuine business transactions.

Acting upon such representations, the applicants not only

facilitated investments from third parties but also invested their

own amount of Rs.52,00,000/- and earned commission through

proper banking channels, which is duly supported by documentary

evidence placed on record. It is contended that after initially

maintaining credibility, the complainant and his brothers defaulted

in repayment, failed to honour their commitments including those

relating to a high-value tender, and ultimately became

untraceable, thereby defrauding the applicants and other

investors of substantial sums.

5. It is further submitted that upon discovering the fraudulent

conduct, the applicants and other investors initiated legal

proceedings against the complainant's brother, who was the

Managing Director of the said company, and only thereafter, as a

retaliatory measure and with mala fide intention, the present false

FIR has been lodged against the applicants. It is further argued

that the dispute is essentially civil in nature arising out of financial

transactions, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences

are not made out. The applicants are law-abiding persons and

have cooperated with the investigation. Moreover, custodial

interrogation is not required in the present case. In such

circumstances, counsel for the applicants prays for grant

anticipatory bail to the applicants.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the

prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the allegations against

the applicants are serious in nature involving cheating and

criminal breach of trust of substantial amounts and that the

investigation is still in progress. However, he could not dispute the

fact that there exist prior business and financial transactions

between the parties and that certain amounts were exchanged

through banking channels. It is further not disputed that there are

litigations and criminal cases pending between the parties,

thereby indicating a background of commercial dealings.

Nonetheless, it is contended that despite such transactions, the

applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, induced the

complainant on false assurances and failed to fulfill their

commitments, and therefore, considering the gravity of the

offence, they are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the

documents taken on record.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature

and gravity of the allegations, and the material available on

record, as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for the parties, this Court is of the view that though the allegations

pertain to offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust

involving substantial amounts, it is not in dispute that there existed

prior business and financial transactions between the parties and

that there are counter allegations and litigations pending inter se,

indicating a background of strained relations. At this stage, the

element of dishonest intention from the inception, which is

essential for constituting the alleged offences, would be a matter

to be established during trial. Further, certain transactions are

stated to have been effected through banking channels and the

applicants are stated to have cooperated with the investigation. In

such circumstances and considering that custodial interrogation

does not appear to be necessary, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of

anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the case

9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that

in the event of arrest of the applicants - Manikant Singh and

Shushma Singh, on executing a personal bond (each) with one

local surety (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the

arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following

conditions:-

(a) They should 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) They should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

(c) They should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(d) The Applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.