1 2025:CGHC:22408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1023 of 2025 1 - Mahendra Kumar Gupta S/o Nathuni Sao Aged About 48 Years R/o. Gandhi Chowk Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Santram S/o Late Bhaira Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaski Chowki Bariyo Police Station - Naya Rajpur District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates For Respondent/State For Objector : : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, GA Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.05.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities) Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Crime No.90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant along with other co- accused persons have sold the joint property bearing khasra Nos. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172 and 0.134 hectare situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj registered in the name of complainant’s mother namely Jubaro Bai by executing a registered sale deed dated 18/11/2024 in favour of the appellant Shivaram Nagesiya in a fraudulent manner without any consent of other co-shareholders and without obtaining the permission of the Sub-divisional Officer/Collector as complainant’s mother Jubaro Bai belongs to special backward tribe. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that Smt. Jubaro Bai who is the co-shareholder of the land and her name was also recorded in the revenue records of land bearing Khashra Nos. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172 and 0.134 hectare situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Smt. Jubaro Bai had executed the sale deed dated 18.11.2024 in favour of the appellant Shivaram after receiving the consideration amount and the present appellant does not have any role in transaction between Jubaro Bai and the appellant Shivaram. Smt. Jubaro Bai had sold her share after obtaining the consent letter from other co-shareholders. The appellant is the only witness in the sale deed with respect to sale and consideration amount and at the time of registry, 3 seller himself (Jubaro Bai) was present in the registry office with consent letter and she has received the consideration amount with respect of sell of land. He further submits that the present appellant has six criminal antecedents of IPC and SC and ST Act, in which he has acquitted of all the charges and other similarly situated co-accused person namely Yashwant Kumar who was the Sub-Registrar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 656 of 2025 and also other co-accused persons namely Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya and Kamla Nagesiya have already been granted bail in CRA No. 995 of 2025 & CRA No. 997 of 2025 and MCRC No. 3993 of 2025, therefore he submits that the present appellant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He further submits that charge-sheet has not been filed in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector oppose the submission as made by counsel for the appellant, however he could not describe the aforesaid fact. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused person namely Yashwant Kumar who was the Sub-Registrar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 in MCRCA No. 656 of 2025 and also other co-accused persons namely Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya and Kamla Nagesiya have already been granted bail in CRA No. 995 of 2025 & CRA No. 997 of 2025 and MCRC No. 3993 of 2025, as such without further commenting anything on merits and the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take time, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory 4 bail to the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant – Mahendra Kumar Gupta, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He 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) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He 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) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice AMIT PATEL