1 / 4 2025:CGHC:15450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 455 of 2025 Brijbihari Singh @ Biju Singh S/o Ramashankar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Kohka Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. DM, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.04.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 49/2025 registered at Police Station – Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.04.03 14:25:25 +0530 2 / 4 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Devnath Gupta had lodged a written complaint stating that on 12.02.2019, he had purchased Khasra no. 5407/4 and 5407/3 in Mouza kohka ward no. 14, Durg through a registered sale deed from Arvind, Harish Rathore and R Rathore. The complainant paid the sale price of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five lakhs) through a cheque issued on his corporation bank. The amount was received jointly by Kartik (General Attorney of Arvind), Harish and Rajendra. After registration of the sale deed, the property was transferred in his name and loan booklet no. P-2391871 was issued wherein both the above-mentioned properties were mentioned. Further, the two properties were sold through a registered sale deed to Mr. Sanjay Bundela and his wife Sheela Bundela who had also constructed a house on this land. Later on, the complainant came to know that accused Kartik, Arvind, Rajendra and Harish had cheated him by preparing fake papers and committed a fraud of Rs. 28,00,000/-. When Mr. Sanjay and Mrs. Sheela came to know of that the said land belonged to the government, they demanded their money back, however, the complainant has stated that he himself was not aware of this fact and had sold the properties in good faith. On the basis of the complaint, a FIR against the accused persons have been registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of IPC. A copy of the FIR is marked herewith as ANNEXURE A/2. 3 / 4 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in present case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 21.03.2023 and alleged fraud transaction is of the year 2017, but the applicant has been implicated in the year 2025. He further submits that applicant has no involvement in the sale and purchase of the above-mentioned properties, even after that the name of the applicant has been mentioned as co-accused by the police authorities, hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant along with other co-accused persons have sold the land in question, which is already been registered in the name of the Industries Department to the complainant, further the applicant has 2 other cases in similar nature against the applicant, therefore, he 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 & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and the fact that as the case pertains to the year 2017 and the allegation against the applicant that he along with other co-accused persons alleged to have sold the 4 / 4 land in question, which is already been registered in the name of the Industries Department to the complainant, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Brijbihari Singh @ Biju Singh, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (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, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav