Brijkishor Das vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Brijkishor Das, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 913 of 2021, registered at Police Station Supela, Durg, for offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner failed to pay rent for a transit mixer rented from Smt. Neelam Lumba. An agreement was made on 7.9.2021, for a rent of Rs. 2,20,000/- with 18% GST. The petitioner allegedly paid rent for two months but failed to make further payments. A co-accused, Madan Prasad, was granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner was previously taken into custody and released on bail. The case is scheduled for charge framing on 15.1.2026.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The reasoning appears to stem from the observation that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The Court also took into consideration that a co-accused had been enlarged on anticipatory bail and that the petitioner had previously been released on bail after being taken into custody, following the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to specific conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, and appearing before the trial court on all dates. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of considering the bail application and would not bind the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of non-payment of rent for a rented transit mixer, which may constitute offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the dispute appears to be of a civil nature, and he is apprehending arrest. He relies on the fact that a co-accused was granted anticipatory bail and that he was previously released on bail after being taken into custody, in line with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State/non-applicant.