1 / 4
2024:CGHC:42566
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1264 of 2024
Narendra Kumar Juneja S/o Late Kishanlal Juneja Aged About 52 Years
R/o Jagatpur, Dhimrapur, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil and
District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraipali, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
For Objector : Mr. S.S. Bhaduri, Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.10.2024
1 This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the
applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No. 264/2024 registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District
Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 Prosecution case, in brief, is that the FIR of the incident was lodged
by one Vikram Rateria on 08.10.2024 inter-alia on the allegations
that, he had entered into an agreement with one Anant Kumar
2 / 4
Mishra and Krishna Prasad Mishra for purchase of the land situated
at Orissa admeasuring 100 acres for a consideration of Rs.
1,50,000/- per acres. The agreement was executed on 25.05.2024
and co-accused Shishupal Pradhan and Jhulup Sahu were
attesting witnesses of the agreement. It has been further alleged
that the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs -3 lacs were paid to the land owners
through blank cheques and Rs. 90,000/- cash was paid to
Shishupal, but till 08.10.2024 no registered sale deed has been
executed. The allegations against the present applicant are that, he
had introduced Jhulup Kumar Sahu and Shishupal Pradhan. It has
been alleged that the applicant and two other persons have cheated
the complainant. It has been further alleged that, the present
applicant and other two witnesses of the agreement have insisted
the complainant to invest the amount in the said land. It has been
further alleged that, all the three persons have lured to increase land
rates to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per acres and till date not a single
penny has been paid and they have cheated the complainant and
has caused the loss to the tune Rs. 6,90,000/-. Accordingly, the FIR
has been lodged.
3 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He
further submits that the complainant is in the business of sale and
purchase of land. The applicant is neither the owner nor the witness
to the agreement to sale dated 25.05.2024. The father of the
complainant is known to the applicant and he has shown interest to
purchase the property at Orissa and applicant has only provided the
3 / 4
mobile number of one of the accused, namely, Shishupal Pradhan.
The applicant has no relation either with Shishupal Pradhan or
Jhulup Kumar Sahu, even he never met with both of them. He fur-
ther submits that neither single penny has been paid to the appli-
cant either by the complainant or by his father and there is no evi-
dence which shows that either the applicant has cheated the com-
plainant or any amount has been paid to him. He also submits that
the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents under the IPC,
out of which in four cases he has been acquitted and one case is
disposed off and rest one pending. Hence, he prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as objector
opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel
for the objector submits that the owner of the land has died 15 years
ago and the applicant along with other co-accused persons have
cheated the complainant and has caused the loss to the tune of Rs.
6,90,000/-.
5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the
documents taken on record.
6 Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation levelled
against the applicant and the fact that he has only provided the
mobile number of one of the accused, namely, Shishupal Pradhan
and he is neither the owner nor the witness to the agreement to
sale deed, further there is no evidence which shows that either
the applicant has cheated the complainant or any amount has
4 / 4
been paid to him and the case between the parties is civil in nature,
also considering the fact that so far as the criminal antecedents of
the applicant is concerned, applicant has six previous criminal an-
tecedents under the IPC, out of which in four cases he has been
acquitted and one case is disposed off and rest one is pending, this
Court without further commenting anything on merits, finds it
appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7 Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in
the event of arrest of the applicant– Narendra Kumar Juneja on
executing a personal bond with one local 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 his 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 alongwith a colored post-
card full size photo having printed the adhaar num-
ber on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve themselves in any offence of
similar nature in future.
Sd/-
Sd/- Sd
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Preeti