1 2025:CGHC:18350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 555 of 2025 Sarita Pandey W/o Late Surendra Kumar Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Moharenga, Tah. And P.S. - Bemetara, Distt. - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Police Station - Bemetara, Distt. - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 411/2024, registered at Police Station – Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that the applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to the one Jyoti Singh Verma by concealing the material fact that the said land was not free from all kind RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of encumbrances in view of the fact that the same land is the subject matter of the civil suit and as such the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss and his father has also been admitted in the hospital when he came to know regarding such fraud committed the accused person in furtherance of the common intention of all it is the contention of the complainant that the parties entered into the agreement with the accused persons and paid the accused Rs. 49,30,300/- as consideration on account of registration of the sale deed, however, the sold property was the subjected matter of the litigation pending between the concerned parties. Hence, this application. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is completely innocent and further submitted that no single evidence collected by the prosecution which shows that the applicant has executed the sale in favour of the complainant i.e. Jyoti Singh Verma. Therefore applicant is entitle for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that, it transpires that the applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to the one Jyoti Singh Verma by concealing the material fact that the said land was not free from all kind of encumbrances in view of the fact that the same land is the subject matter of the civil suit and as such the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss and his father has also been admitted in the hospital when he came to know regarding such fraud committed the accused person in furtherance of the common intention of all it is the contention of the complainant that the parties entered into the agreement with the accused persons and paid the accused Rs. 49,30,300/- as consideration on account of registration of the sale deed, however, the 3 sold property was the subjected matter of the litigation pending between the concerned parties. Furthermore, there are three criminal antecedents of the applicant including the present one. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available, it transpires that the applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to the one Jyoti Singh Verma by concealing the material fact that the said land was not free from all kind of encumbrances in view of the fact that the same land is the subject matter of the civil suit and as such the complainant has suffered an irreparable loss and his father has also been admitted in the hospital when he came to know regarding such fraud committed the accused person in furtherance of the common intention of all it is the contention of the complainant that the parties entered into the agreement with the accused persons and paid the accused Rs. 49,30,300/- as consideration on account of registration of the sale deed, however, the sold property was the subjected matter of the litigation pending between the concerned parties, further there are three criminal antecedents of the applicant including the present one, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Sarita Pandey, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 411/2024, registered at Police Station – Bemetara, District – 4 Bemetara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar