1 2025:CGHC:19968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 631 of 2025 Rajkumar Bajaj Alias Raju Bajaj S/o Late Rajal Das Bajaj Aged About 57 Years R/o- Ward No. 7, Nishant Poultry Road, Kasturba Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. For objector : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 01/05/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.279/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474,120B of IPC. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.05.02 19:56:40 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that an F.I.R. came to be registered by P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur against the applicant along with the other co-accused persons stating that the victim/informant had purchased a land bearing khasra No. 448/11/GA admeasuring area of 3049 sq.ft. from one Vijay Laxmi Sharma and khasra no. 448/37/GA admeasuring area 3921 sq.ft. from one Rameshwar Prasad Pandey total area 6970, situated at village Ameri P.H. No. 43, Revenue Circle Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), on 14.01.2021 and 21.09.2021 respectively, the total land was purchased at Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and money was subsequently paid through present applicant, the mutation was duly done and after the retirement of his father in July 2021 the said purchased land was sought to be sold in order to meet the domestic exigencies then it came to the knowledge of the victim/informant that the purchased land does not exist, one of the seller has sent a legal notice through her advocate stating that she does not have any land at village Ameri bearing khasra No. 448/11/GA total area 3049 sq.ft. On the basis of above allegations the local Police has registered the present crime against the applicant and co-accused persons for committing the offence of cheating and forging the land records by entering into a criminal conspiracy. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no plausible explanation was provided by the complainant for delaying in the filing of FIR after 4-5 years. He would submit that the prosecution agency without taking any action upon the FIR registered on the complaint of the present applicants on 12/03/2025 have acted arbitrarily and took action upon the FIR of the complainant which was registered after 4 3 years. He would submit that the land was sold by Vijay Laxmi Sharma and Rameshwar Prasad Pandey and the name of Vijay Laxmi and Rameshwar were already recorded in revenue records from 2009, whereas the sale deed was executed in 2021. He would submit that before execution of the sale deed the purchaser has verified all the revenue records, which were stand recorded in the name of seller and thereafter, the sale deed was executed, now after near about 4 years the F.I.R. has been lodged. Not a single document has been filed by the complainant to show the involvement of the present applicant who is neither the broker nor the witness to the sale deeds. He would submit that the applicant has never prepared any forged document related to the said land neither he is involved in the said agreement neither as broker nor as a witness to the above mentioned registered sale deed. He would submit that entire case is based on documentary evidence and does not require custodial interrogation. He would further submit that the applicant is a reputed businessman and is suffering from diseases and applicant is a sole bread earner of the family and the daughter of the applicant has serious mental issue and investigation and trial would take some time for conclusion, therefore he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and he would submit that anticipatory bail application of co-accused person namely Suresh Singh Thakur has been rejected by this Court vide MCRCA No.558/2025 on 23/04/2025. 5. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation made in the FIR against the present applicant and also considering the fact that anticipatory bail application of co-accused person namely Suresh Singh Thakur has been rejected by this Court vide MCRCA No.558/2025 on 23/04/2025 and also considering the fact that investigation is still going on, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Rajkumar Bajaj Alias Raju Bajaj, involved in Crime No.279/2025, registered at Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B of IPC is rejected. Sd/-Sd S SDSDSDSD Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri