1 2025:CGHC:19402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 592 of 2025 1 - K. D. Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Ishwar Das Vaishnav Aged About 72 Years R/o Professor Colony, H.N.-125, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Pithora, District - Mahasmaund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Surfraz Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 65/2017 registered at Police Station – Pithora, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 408, 409, 466, 468, 471, 120(b), 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Khemin Bai land bearing Khasra No. 897/1, Rakba 0.02 Hectare, 2 situated at village Lahrod, District Mahasamund was acquired by National Highway Authority of India and the compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was determined. Since, the complainant Khemin Bai was employed as domestic help in the house of Shiv Kumar Tiwari, who has taken the advantage of complainant and her illiteracy and had secretly allotted the above land in the name of complainant Khemin Bai and when the compensation was determined in the name of complainant, Shiv Kumar Tiwari had opened an account in Punjab National Bank, Branch Baya Kashdol. Since, with the forged practice, the land lease was allotted in the name of complainant Khemin Bai. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no evidence in the case against the applicant and as the offeces are triable by the Court of learned JMFC Co-accused namely Gopal Pradhan, Rameshwar Chouhan, Santram Sonwani and Shiv Kumar Tiwari were released on bail. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that applicant having no any previous criminal antecedent the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case it transpires that there is no evidence in the case against the applicant and Co-accused namely Gopal Pradhan, Rameshwar Chouhan, Santram Sonwani and Shiv Kumar Tiwari were released on bail, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – K.D. Vaishnav on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant 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) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve himself in any 4 offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali