[Cites 6, 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:13191
Digitally
signed by
                                                                            NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN


                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                     MCRCA No. 422 of 2026


            1 - Manikant Singh S/o Late Ramashankar Singh Aged About 48 Years
            R/o K/173, Kali Mandir Road, Hanuman Nagar, Kankar Bagh, Patna
            Bihar
            2 - Shushma Singh W/o Manikant Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o K/
            173, Kali Mandir Roadm Hanuman 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. 456/2022 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 report at Police Station- Mohan Nagar stating that he

is the younger brother of Sunil Raj Dayal, Director of Orbit

Electromech India Pvt. Ltd., and that the accused persons namely

Manikant, Sushma, and Anand approached their residence and

entered into discussions regarding scrap business transactions

with his elder brother, wherein they represented themselves as

brokers for several companies and agreed to conduct business on

agreed terms including a commission of 0.5% on profits. It is

alleged that during the COVID-19 period, acting upon such

representations, a total sum of Rs.3,29,24,000/- was entrusted to

the accused persons for the purpose of clearing outstanding dues

of various companies, out of which Rs.1,37,34,000/- was

transferred through banking channels and the remaining amount

was paid in cash, however, despite receipt of the said amount, the

accused persons neither returned the money nor discharged the

liabilities towards the companies or the complainant and his

brother, thereby committing breach of trust and cheating. On the

basis of the written complaint submitted by Praveen Rai, a case

has been registered against the accused persons under Sections

409, 420, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the

investigation is presently underway.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations

levelled in the FIR are wholly false, frivolous, and baseless,

having been concocted with an oblique motive to harass and

extort money from the applicants. It is submitted that the

complainant Praveen Rai, along with his brothers Anil Rai and

Sunil Rai, has in fact orchestrated a series of fraudulent schemes

and has duped several persons, including the present applicants,

under the guise of business transactions. Learned counsel

submits that the complainant and his brothers are habitual

offenders with multiple criminal antecedents across various

States, facing several FIRs and complaint cases involving

offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and

conspiracy involving huge financial amounts. It is further pointed

out that even in an earlier FIR lodged by the complainant, the

police, after due investigation, submitted a closure report holding

the allegations to be false, thereby seriously affecting the

credibility of the present prosecution and indicating a pattern of

misuse of criminal law as a tool of coercion.

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

prosecution version and reveal that the applicants themselves are

victims of fraud committed by the complainant and his family

members. The applicants had developed business relations with

the complainant and his brothers, who projected themselves as

reputed businessmen and directors of Orbit Electromech India

Pvt. Ltd., and induced the applicants and their associates to invest

substantial amounts in their business ventures, including

transactions relating to the iron trade and a high-value medical

tender. Acting upon such inducement, the applicants not only

facilitated investments from third parties but also invested their

own funds to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/- and earned commission

through legitimate banking channels, which is duly supported by

documentary evidence such as bank statements and cheques

placed on record. Initially, certain payments were made to gain

confidence. However, subsequently, the complainant and his

brothers defaulted in repayment, failed to honour their

commitments, and even furnished forged documents in relation to

the tender, thereby cheating the applicants and other investors of

substantial sums.

5. It is also 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, whereafter the complainant, with a mala fide

intention and as a retaliatory measure, lodged the present false

FIR against the applicants. It is further contended that the present

case is one of case and counter-case arising out of prior financial

dealings, and the applicants have been falsely implicated to

pressurize them into withdrawing legitimate claims and

proceedings. Learned counsel submits that 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 fulfil 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 although 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.