1 2025:CGHC:22296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3267 of 2025 Mohd. Altaf S/o Mohd Aarif Aged About 41 Years R/o Ada Villa Baronbazar Rampur Tehsil, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non- Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Objector : Mr. Anirudh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhed, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.05.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The story, in brief, is that Pravinchanda Parakh, Ajay Baafna and Rajkumar Bothra entered into an agreemtn on 16.09.2023 wherein 2 the original owner of the land were Mohan Sonkar, Champa Bai, Santosh Kumar, bisahin and Krishna Kumar. While execution of the agreement, applicant has taken a total amount of Rs. 2,74,31,100/- on various dates out of which the registry of land worth Rs. 2,14,71,200/- was done in the name of Mohan Sonkar and Champa Bai and the remaining amount of Rs. 59,52,900/- is deposited to the accused applicant in advance which is for registry of 06 acres of land which was done with the remaining land, owners, as per the agreement of 10acres of land but the same has not been sold to the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the agreement for the land was executed between Ram Narayan Banjare and the applicant for the disputed land. Later the applicant has entered into agreement with Pravinchand Parak, Ajay Bafna and Rajkumar Bothra on 23.09.2023 in that agreement the RTGS no. and check no. for Rs. 15 lac has not been mentioned and also the receipt of Rs. 24 Lac is also not there in the agreement. The complainant has accepted that out of the amount of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- he got the land registered in his name worth Rs. 2.14,71,200/- this is an admitted position by the complainant and the dispute is only about Rs. 59,52,900/- as per the complainant. She further submitted that the applicant has never entered into any agreement other than agreement dated 29.09.2023 and if any document has been prepared in his name and with his signature is forged and is related to any transaction with anyone. 3 She also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 18.02.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has already been submitted in the present case. 5. Mr. Anirudh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede as an objector and opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has committed fraud and forgery against the objector and has embezzled lakhs of Rupees from him in the name of selling the property. Thus granting bail to the present applicant would not only cause irreparable loss to the complainant but also boost the morale of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, further, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 18.02.2025, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Mohd. Altaf, involved in Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line Raipur, district- Raipur 4 (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv)The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for(i) opening 5 of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. However, this court hopes and trusts that the trial court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice alfiza