Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:23589
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 823 of 2025
Vinay Soni S/o Shri Ganpat Prasad Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Lig-645,
Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
... applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House In-Charge, P.S. Deendayal
Nagar Police Station, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate
For Res/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.06.2025
1.
This second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth, ‘BNSS’) has
been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No. 151/2025 registered at Police Station –
Deendayal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under
2
Sections 420,467,468,471,34 &120-B of Indian Penal Code. His first
application for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed on merits
by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No.
603 /2025.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant alongwith
other officials issued a public auction with regard to sale of two open
lands bearing Khasra Nos. 364/5 and 364/21 situated at Paltwari Halka
No. 104, Shubh Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Raipur with a total area of
1.850 sq.ft, in which, the complainant participated and being a highest
bidder, he was declared successful bidder. A bid confirmation letter
was accordingly issued in his favour and in pursuance thereof, he
deposited 25% of the total bid amount, i.e. Rs.5,52,000/- (as per FIR).
However, upon verification, it was found that the aforesaid land stood in
the name of a different person in the revenue records. It is alleged that
the bank officials, despite being aware of the fact that the land was
non-existent, proceeded to include the said property in the auction.
Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3)
CrPC before the Magistrate, Raipur, who, in turn, directed the
registration of FIR against the applicant for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that
applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question, as there
is no material available on record to connect the applicant with the
crime in question. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution
is taken as it is, no case is made out against the applicant for offence
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B of the IPC.
3
He further submits that dispute between the parties is purely a civil
dispute and the FIR has been maliciously lodged with the sole extent
to exert undue pressure upon the bank and its officials. He further
submits that sale / auction notification have been issued solely for the
purpose of recovering the bank’s dues and the recovery proceedings
were conducted strictly under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,
2002. As such, in light of the bar imposed under Section 32 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, initiation of any civil or criminal proceedings in
respect of actions taken in good faith under this Act has no criminal
antecedents and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time,
therefore, he prays the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non
-applicant/State, opposes the bail application of the present applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts
& circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the
alleged lands bearing Khasra Nos. 364/5 and 364/21 situated at
Paltwari Halka No. 104, Shubh Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Raipur with
a total area of 1.850 sq.ft, for which the auction was made stood in the
name of some other person, upon which the FIR was registered
against the applicant and the fact that allegation made against the
applicant appears to be of serious in nature, which needs to be
investigated thoroughly / properly and also considering the fact that
there is no change in circumstances to entertain this second application
for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4
7. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail of the applicant – Vinay Soni,
involved in Crime No. 151/2025, registered at police station Deendayal
Nagar, Raipur for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is rejected.
Sd/ Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Amita
AMITA Digitally signed by
AMITA DUBEY
DUBEY Date: 2025.06.19
11:53:16 +0530