1 2025:CGHC:1241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 69 of 2025 Punaram Chouhan S/o Late Shri Resham Lal Chouhan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Chhechhar, Thana - Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2025 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. 173/2016, registered at Police Station Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.09 16:57:56 +0530 2 Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, Mrs. Chandrika Bai, had 1.46 hectares of land in village Tharhidi, with Khasra numbers 45-70-702-711-719. The accused, Bhagwana Patel and Daras Ram Patel, allegedly created a fake registration by impersonating the complainant’s name, and in collusion with Shanti Bai and other accused, got the fake registration done in front of the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has been filed, the prosecution agency has not collected any of the material evidence to establish that the said transaction was done by the applicant, only allegation against him is that he has identified the wrong person in the sale deed. He also submits that the applicant was not the beneficiaries of the said transaction as the sale deed was not executed in his name, he has been made an accused, only because he was the village Kotwar at that time, further the bail applications of three of the co-accused persons, namely, Bhagwana, Daras Ram and Chandrika Bai have already been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2017 and 09.11.2016 in MCRC Nos. 536 of 2017 and 6941 of 2016. The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024 3 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to create a fake registration by impersonating the complainant’s name, and in collusion with other accused persons, got the fake registration done in front of the Sub-Registrar, further the applicant is an absconder and he was arrested on 30.11.2024, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offense, the material available in the case diary, and the fact that the case pertains to the year 2016, and since then the applicant has been absconding, whereas five accused, out of seven accused persons, were put to trial and have been convicted by the trial court, as such, looking at the conduct of the applicant, who was absconding since 2016 and was arrested on 30.11.2024, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Punaram Chouhan, 4 involved in Crime No. 173/2016, registered at Police Station Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil