Pallavi Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:22493

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRCA No.804 of 2025

¶6

1 - Pallavi Mishra W/o Dr. Sanjay Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o Near N.K. Baksh House Om Nagar Jarhabhata Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

... Applicant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

	... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s)	: Shri Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy.GA
For Objector	: Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate

¶11

Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

03/06/2025

SATISH TUMANE

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE

¶16

1. Though the matter has been listed on admission, but, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally, as case diary is also available with the learned State counsel.

¶17

2. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.224/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (CG) for the

¶18

2

¶19

offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

3. As per the prosecution case, on 14.05.2025, an FIR has been registered against the present applicant with an allegation that the husband of the present applicant namely Dr. Sanjay Banjare is having a house in his ownership at Mathpurena, Raipur. The husband of the present applicant-Dr. Sanjay Banjare has entered into an agreement for sale of the said house to the complainant-Chandan Singh Thakur on 23.10.2024 for total consideration of Rs.47 Lakhs and out of the total sale consideration, Rs.10 Lakhs was paid to the Seller as advance amount through Cheque No.000011, dated 23.10.2024 and the time fixed for registration of the sale deed was four months from the date of execution of the agreement. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 29.10.2024, another amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid to the husband of the present applicant through RTGS, but the sale deed of the said house could not be executed in favour of the purchaser/complainant. Since the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the purchaser, there was mutual settlement between them to refund the advance amount paid to the husband of the present applicant and in pursuance thereof, a cheque of Rs.15 Lakhs was issued by the husband of the present applicant in favour of the complainant, but, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Payee Bank for want of sufficient fund in the bank account of the husband of the present applicant. Thereafter, an FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 14.05.2025 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh, in which, the applicant is apprehending her arrest.

¶21

3

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the house in question was situated at Raipur, which is recorded in the name of the husband of the present applicant namely Dr. Sanjay Banjare in the revenue records and the agreement and the transaction have been made in between her husband-Dr. Sanjay Banjare and the complainant-Chandan Singh Thakur and the present applicant has no role to play in any of the transaction made between them. It is further submitted that only to create pressure upon her husband, she has made accused in the present case alleging that prior to the execution of the agreement dated 23.10.2024, Rs.50,000/- was given to her as advance amount towards sale agreement, whereas no date or place have been mentioned in the FIR with respect to the aforesaid payment. It is further submitted that there is no mention of the fact in the agreement that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the present applicant as an advnace amount and it is only subsequent allegation to create pressure upon her. He would further submit that the complainant has not filed any suit for specific performance of contract nor has filed any case under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. He would also submit that the present applicant is a Doctor by profession and posted at CIMS, Bilaspur, having good reputation in the society and she being a lady, apprehending her arrest in the alleged offence, in which, she has no role to play, therefore, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶23

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector would submit that the present applicant along with her husband collidely entered into an agreement for sale of the house, which was in the name of the husband of the present applicant and

¶24

4

¶25

both of them have made transactions and cheated the complainant by not executing the sale deed in his favour, despite receiving the huge advance amount of Rs.15,50,000/-. From the statement of the witnessChandan Singh Thakur and the Statement of Mohd. Akbar, it reveals that an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash has been paid to the present applicant towards advance payment of the sale consideration, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during investigation and further considering the agreement dated 23.10.2024, which was executed between Dr. Sanjay Banjare and Chandan Singh Thakur, in which, there is no mention of advance payment of Rs.50,000/- cash to the present applicant against sale consideration, the present applicant, who is a qualified Doctor by profession and being a lady, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed . it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Pallavi Mishra, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶29

(a) She 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶30

5

¶31

(b) She shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶32

(c) She shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶33

(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, before the arresting officer.

¶34

(e) She shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶37

Tumane

Pallavi Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallavi Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeshi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Meena Kumari Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radhadevi Sain Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Vaishya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayaj Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh