1 2025:CGHC:18349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 565 of 2025 Sarita Pandey W/o Late Surendra Kumar Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Moharenga, Tahsil- And P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station- Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy.A.G. and Shri Amit Verma, PL. 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 her arrest in connection with Crime GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.24 19:15:39 +0530 2 No. 410/2024, registered at Police Station – Bemetara Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that present applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to one Nihal 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 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. 49,54,300/- as consideration on account of registration of the sale deed, however, the sold property was subject matter of the litigation pending between the concerned parties. Hence this application. 4. 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. Nihal 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 the applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to complainant Nihal Singh Verma by concealing the material fact that the said land was not free 3 from all kind of encumbrances and civil suit is pending in respect of the same land. 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, nature of allegations, also considering the fact that the applicant along with other co-accused had sold the agriculture land to complainant Nihal Singh Verma by concealing the material fact that the said land was not free from all kind of encumbrances and also civil suit is pending in respect of the same land and further considering the fact that 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. 410/2024, registered at Police Station – Bemetara Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, is rejected. Sd/-Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri