Allowed

Vivek Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCRC/6890/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur granted regular bail to the applicant under Section 483 BNSS. The allegations involved cheating and dishonour of a cheque arising from a proposed vehicle sale. The court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. Granting a personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

The bail application of the applicant is allowed. The applicant shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court and shall appear before the trial Court on each date till disposal of the trial.

Vivek Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010288462026 2026:CGHC:40772

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 6890 of 2026

¶6

Vivek Dadsena S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Dadsena, Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Karnaud, Police Station Birra, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.) 495668.

... Applicant(s)

versus

KUNAL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Uday Singh Bhadoriya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Panday, Dy. Adv. Gen.

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

18/09/2026

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.267/2026, registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').

¶17

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant-Chandra

¶18

¶19

Prakash Jaiswal lodged an FIR before the concerned Police Station alleged therein that he had agreed to purchase a Fortuner car bearing registration No.CG11BN1748 from the applicant for a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-, against which he paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the applicant. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant sold the said vehicle to another person and failed to return the amount received from the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicant issued cheque No.008355 for Rs.10,00,000/- towards discharge of the said liability, but payment of the cheque was stopped, resulting in dishonour. During investigation, the applicant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded and cheque book and mobile phone were seized. The investigation is stated to be pending regarding verification of the cheque. Based upon such, aforesaid offences were registered against the accused.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the dispute involved is essentially of a civil nature arising out of a monetary transaction relating to the proposed sale of a vehicle and the same has been given a criminal colour. He would also submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 19.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail.

¶21

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegation against the applicant is

¶22

¶23

that he cheated the complainant after receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the proposed sale of the vehicle and thereafter sold the vehicle to another person. He further submits that the applicant had issued a cheque belonging to another person towards discharge of his liability, which was dishonoured on account of stopped payment. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail application.

¶24

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record.

¶25

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations alleged against the applicant, the fact that the allegations primarily arise out of a monetary transaction relating to the proposed sale of a vehicle and prima facie, bear the character of a civil dispute, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 19.06.2026, thus without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶26

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

¶28

¶29

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

¶30

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶31

8. Ofce is directed to send a certif fi ed copy of this order to the trial i Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.

¶32

S/Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Kunal

Vivek Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases