1 2025:CGHC:27100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 714 of 2025 1 - Shradhakar ( Shrardhakar) Nishad S/o Bolo Nishad Aged About 83 Years R/o Village - Badmal, Police Station And Tahsil - Pussaur, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.239 of 2023, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for offences punishable under Sections 415, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered pursuant to the SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 order passed on an application filed by the complainant under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the present case are that the complainant Smt. Kiran Agrawal purchased Survey No.226/2 situated at Village Badmal, Tahsil Pussaur, District Raigarh through a registered sale-deed. The sale-deed was executed on 13.8.2013, but it was registered in the names of two children of the complainant and three other children, who are not related to the complainant. A copy of the sale-deed was provided to the complainant on 4.7.2019. During this period, the present applicant claimed compensation for the said land acquired by NTPC, and this fact was allegedly concealed. Subsequently, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., upon which the concerned Court took cognizance, and pursuant to the direction issued, an FIR was registered for the commission of the aforementioned offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the sale-deed was executed at the behest of the complainant in the names of her two children and three children of her relative. He would further submit that the order of mutation was passed, Rin Pustika was prepared, and all the relevant documents were handed over to the complainant. He would contend that a complaint was made and a decision was taken by the State Government to cancel the order of mutation. He would also submit that a civil suit has been filed by the State Government for cancellation of the sale-deeds on the ground that the applicant alienated the property but failed to hand over the copy of the sale-deeds and other documents to the 3 purchasers, with the intent to grab the amount of compensation. He would further contend that the co-accused has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. He would also contend that the applicant is aged about 83 years, the investigation is going on and there is no need for custodial interrogation, therefore, the bail application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. He would submit that the applicant cheated the complainant and other persons to grab the amount of compensation. He would further submit that the sale-deed was executed, but its original copy was not handed over to the complainant. The order of mutation was subsequently set aside by the Revenue Authority, and the State Government has preferred a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale-deed. He would also submit that the fraud and cheating are on the face of the record, and hence, the application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. A complaint case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 13.4.2022, and pursuant to the order passed by the Competent Criminal Court, an FIR was registered against the applicant and another person on 16.3.2023. 7. A perusal of the statement of the complainant would make it clear that though the sale-deed was executed on 13.8.2013, its copy was handed over to the complainant on 4.7.2019. It is also alleged 4 that the amount of compensation received from NTPC was misappropriated by the applicant, and this fact was never disclosed to the complainant or the other purchasers of the property. The applicant could not provide a satisfactory explanation for executing the sale-deed in the names of five children, particularly when the complainant is the mother of two children and the remaining three are not related to her. 8. Taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant, the period of abscondance and the gravity of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi