Chattisgarh High Court
Sai Adityarath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
VAISHALI
LUCKY 2026:CGHC:11431
NAGARIA
Digitally signed by
VAISHALI LUCKY NAFR
NAGARIA
Date: 2026.03.12
10:41:16 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 369 of 2026
1. Sai Adityarath S/o Manas Ranjan Rath Aged About 24 Years R/o
Mani Colony, Panposh, Post Raurkela, District- Sundargarh Orissa
... Applicant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station
Sitapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
2. Manas Ranan Rath S/o Harihar Rath Aged About 49 Years R/o Mani
Colony, Panposh, Post Raurkela, District- Sundargarh Orissa
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer 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.113/2026 registered at Police Station - Sitapur District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that has been alleged that the accused persons, who are father and son, had offered to sell a vehicle bearing registration No.OD-02-CE- 5228 to the complainant Harpreet 2 Singh through an online advertisement on OLX, pursuant to which the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the bank account of accused Manas Ranjan through RTGS; however, after receipt of the said amount, the accused persons neither transferred the vehicle nor its documents and instead disposed of the vehicle to some other person, returning only Rs. 50,000/- despite repeated demands, which led to lodging of the report. It has been further alleged that the accused persons had similarly approached another individual namely Sajjat Akhtar Ansari of Sitapur for sale of a red colour Swift vehicle bearing registration No. OD-14-N-1999 for Rs. 3,20,000/-, whereupon Sajjat Ansari transferred Rs. 2,70,000/- to the account of accused Manas Ranjan but the deal was subsequently cancelled and the amount was not refunded, thereby indicating that the accused persons induced prospective purchasers through online platforms, obtained money from them and thereafter neither delivered the vehicles nor returned the consideration amount.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case without any cogent or reliable material connecting him with the alleged incident. He further submits that the transaction between the parties was purely commercial in nature and at the starting stage the complainant had voluntarily traveled to Odisha, inspected the vehicle, finalized the deal and thereafter transferred the consideration amount, the dispute arises out of consensual business dealings. He further submits that part payment of Rs.50,000/- had already been returned by the applicants and efforts were being made top arrange refund of the 3 remaining amount, their conduct clearly negates any element of cheating or misappropriation. It is further contended that FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about eight months and during this period the parties remained in communication regarding completion of transaction/refund, the criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated as an afterthought, hence, the applicant deserves the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that applicant has six previous criminal antecedents bearing crime No.145 of 2021 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 341, 506 of IPC, crime No. 33 of 2026 for offence under Section 318 of BNS and crime Nos. 29 of 2010, 36 of 2011, 23 of 2019 and 642 of 2025 for offence under sections 296, 351(3), 318 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted at this stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the material available in the case diary, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering that the applicant has six previous criminal antecedents, out of which two are of similar in nature to the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant's request for anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant No.1- Sai Adityarath and applicant No.2 Manas Ranjan Rath, involved in Crime No.113/2026 registered at Police Station - Sitapur District - 4
Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is rejected.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaishali