1 2025:CGHC:17480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 528 of 2025 1 - Chowaram Verma S/o Mangluram Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o. Club Para, Panchsheel Ward, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ved Dev Verma S/o Chowaram Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o. Club Para, Panchsheel Ward, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhekhdev Verma S/o Chowaram Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o. Club Para, Panchsheel Ward, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shamendra Dev Verma S/o Chowaram Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o. Club Para, Panchsheel Ward, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Pushpadevi Awasthi Wd/o Prakash Chandra Awasthi Aged About 65 Years R/o. Appu Chowk, Nayapara, In Front Of Electricity Board Office, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Non-Applicant /State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 16/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This Second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.189/2017 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund for offence under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 3. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicants have already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 192/2017 vide order dated 31.01.2018 on merits. Hence, this bail application. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.06.2015, the respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of the offence against the applicants under Sections 409, 418, 420, 466, 468, 470, 471 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed inter-alia on the allegations that that the complainant was the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 2017/1/24, area 5000 sqft, situated at Clubpara, Mahasamund. The complainant claiming her title over the disputed property on the basis of the alleged registered gift deed dated 16.04.1993 executed by one 3 Bharat Lal Sahu, son of late Ramprasad Sahu in her favour. It was alleged that Bharat Lal Sahu had purchased the said property from Chhabiram on 06.02.1970 and Bharat Lal was the owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 2017/1/24. It was alleged that Chhabiram had no right or title to execute the three registered sale-deeds in favour of the applicants No.1 to 3 dated 09.12.2013 bearing No. 2017/5/1, area 1269 in favour of Ved Dev, bearing No. 2017/5/1, area 1269 in favor of Bhekh Dev, and bearing No. 2017/5/1, area 3193 in favour of Shamendra Dev. It was also alleged that the applicants by playing fraud got obtained the map and thereafter, got executed the sale- deeds by showing the land bearing Khasra No.2017/1/24, area 5000 sqft as Khasra No. 2017/5/1. It was also alleged that the sale-deed and the map were forged documents and the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the witnesses before registration of the offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 30.01.2017 has considered the matter and the criminal complaint has been registered against the accused persons as also, the summons have been issued. It has been contended that being aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate, the applicants preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was registered as Criminal Revision H-23/2017 ventilating so many grounds including the ground that no offence has been committed and the 4 entire allegations leveled in the complaint are of civil nature. The complainant at the time of registration of the complaint has suppressed certain material facts and the learned Magistrate without application of mind has registered the complaint. It has been further contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that even if, the entire allegations leveled against the accused persons would be accepted on its face value, no offence would be made out and the allegations appears to be of civil nature. He has submitted that applicants No.1 to 3 are the purchasers of the land bearing Khasra No. 2017/5/1 and the said property was purchased from the original recorded owner namely Chhabiram vide registered sale-deed dated 09.12.2013. Three sale-deeds were executed in favour of the applicants No.1 to 3 as well as the sale-deeds dated 09.12.2013 are still in existence and the civil suit bearing No. H-15/A-2016 filed by the complainant for cancellation of the sale-deeds executed in favour of the applicants No.1 to 3 are still pending before the competent civil Court i.e. the District Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh and the said Civil Suit was dismissed on 30.10.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the seller namely Chhabiram also filed a civil suit bearing No. 87A/2005 for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed on 12.07.2007 and appeal bearing No. 31A/2007 was also dismissed on 24.10.2008 and the second appeal bearing S.A. No. 17/2009 is pending consideration before this Court. It has been argued that 5 the applicants have already filed their written statements before the learned Civil Court and denied all the allegations contained in the plaint, raising a specific plea that they are the owners of the property in question and they had purchased the property by virtue of the registered sale-deeds. They have also alleged that Bharat Lal had no right or title and therefore, he has no right to execute any gift deed in favor of the plaintiff/complainant. 7. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the applicants have preferred an application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of anticipatory bail, the said application has been rejected on merits vide order dated 31.01.2018 in MCRCA No. 192/2017 and thereafter, the applicants have filed CRMP No. 533/2019, in which they have granted interim relief on 08.03.2019 and further proceedings of complaint case No. S189/2017 were stayed. The said interim order was remained in force till 22.11.2024, on which date, the said CRMP No. 533/2019 was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the applicants preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, on the change of circumstances, but the learned trial Court has rejected the same, as such, the instant second anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants. He lastly submits that the applicants are ready to abide by all the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 6 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants and submits that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicants have already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 192/2017 vide order dated 31.01.2018 and the new ground which has been raised above, cannot be a good ground to release the applicants and looking to the nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicants, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicants and further the fact that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicants have already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 192/2017 vide order dated 31.01.2018 moreover, there is a report showing that land bearing Khasra No.2017/5/1 is non- existent and no such document has been found in the investigation to show that co-accused Chhabiram Chandrakar was recorded as owner of the said land and there is prima facie evidence against accused Chhabiram and applicant Chowaram Verma (in MCRCA No.192/2017) conspiring to sell out the land fraudulently and the then Revenue Inspector Govardhan Rao Ingole (applicant in MCRCA No.641/2017) who aided the other 7 accused persons by providing false, forged documents to facilitate the said sale made to applicants No.2, 3 and 4 in MCRCA No. 192/2017 and it is to be noted that applicants No.2, 3 and 4 are sons of applicant No.1 Chowaram Verma in MCRCA No.192/2017. Hence, after considering on all the material available, I am of this view that none of the applicants deserve to be benefited with grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Chowaram Verma, Ved Dev Verma, Bhekhdev Verma and Shamendra Dev Verma, filed under Section 482 of BNSS involved in Complaint Case No.189/2017 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund for offence under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal