Allowed

Teju Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/7690/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the First Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, granting regular bail to an applicant accused of cheating arising from a civil property dispute, directing surrender on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and standard conditions.

Teju Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010319432026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7631 of 2026

¶6

1 - Teju Ram S/o Late Dayal Singh Korram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Digitally signed byREKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, REKHA ou=HIGH COURT,o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, Post Barahi, Tehsil And District Balod, C. G. (Complete Address Not Mentioned In SINGH st=Chhattisgarh, c=INDate: 2026.09.16 15:39:14 +0530 The Impugned Order)

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod C. G.

¶10

--- Non-applicants

¶11

MCRC No. 7690 of 2026

¶12

1 - Teju Ram S/o Late Dayal Singh Korram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post Barahi, Tehsil And District Balod, C.G. (Complete Address Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order)

¶13

---Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District- Balod, C.G.

¶16

	---Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order On Board

16.09.2026

1) Heard.

2) In MCRC No.7631/2026, the applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.335/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS.

¶23

3) In MCRC No.7690/2026, the applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.336/2026 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence under Section 318(4) of BNS.

¶24

4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and the complainant entered into sale agreements on 03.04.2026 and 30.04.2026, whereby the applicant agreed to sell Survey Nos. 1179/1 and 1057/1, situated at Village Jhalmala, for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the applicant, being the owner of the property, in two instalments, i.e., Rs.3,00,000/in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- through PhonePe. Subsequently, an agreement was entered into on 25.05.2026 with the intent to extend the period of limitation. Despite various requests, when the applicant did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, a legal notice was served upon the applicant and, subsequently, two FIRs were lodged on 08.07.2026, making allegations of cheating and fraud. On such complaint, the police registered offences against the applicant, as stated above.

¶25

¶26

5) Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there was a civil dispute between the present applicant and the complainant. He would contend that the complainant should have filed a suit for specific performance of contract when the applicant failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. He would further contend that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 09.07.2026. He would pray for grant of bail.

¶27

6) On the other hand, the learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant was not the owner of the property and fraudulently represented himself as the owner of the property and entered into the sale agreement. He would contend that as there are serious allegations against the present applicant, both bail applications deserve to be rejected.

¶28

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

¶29

8) Having considered the fact that an agreement to sell was entered into between the parties, whereby the complainant had agreed to purchase the plots bearing Survey Nos. 1179/1 and 1057/1, and Rs.5,00,000/was paid to the applicant, but he failed to execute the sale deed, the allegations made against the present applicant appear to be simple in nature. Further, the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 09.07.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is allowed .

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) he 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;

¶34

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

¶35

(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.

¶36

(iv) If the applicant involves himself in any similar offence in near future, the bail granted by this Court shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶37

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶40

Rekha

Teju Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teju Ram 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