1 2025:CGHC:29127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4278 of 2025 Arjun Yadav S/o Late Sohan Lal Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Saragaon, Police Station - Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Chaubey, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05 of 2025 registered at Police Station- Kharora, 2 District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant- Kamlesh Verma has lodged a report at police station on 02.01.2025 alleging therein that the complainant has purchased 103.4 square feet portion of old settlement land bearing Khasra No. 352/1 area of 0.36 hectares in Village Saragaon. This land was originally sold by Sevakram Yadav during his lifetime to Haleshwar Kumar Sahu on 30.07.2019. Subsequently, on 01.02.2020, Haleshwar Kumar Sahu sold the same to complainant Kamlesh Verma. The complainant is in possession of the said land and is running a shuttered shop thereon and has also given a portion of the land on rent. On 20.11.2024, when the complainant visited the shop, he received a notice from a bank, revealing that Arjun Yadav and Kanti Yadav had mortgaged the said land to “India Shelter Home Loans” to obtain a loan. It was further revealed that the original landlord Sevakram Yadav had gifted the land to his daughter Kanti Bai through a gift deed executed on 21.07.2014. On 30.07.2019, Sevakram Yadav executed an agreement to sell 103.4 square feet out of 462 square feet of the land to Haleshwar Kumar Sahu. Subsequently, on 01.02.2020, Haleshwar Kumar Sahu executed an agreement to sell with regard to transfer the same land to the complainant, Kamlesh Verma. It is alleged that on 11.03.2022, Kanti Bai gifted the land bearing Khasra No. 352/1, area 1350 square feet to her son Arjun Yadav through a gift deed. Subsequently, on 19.04.2023, Kanti Bai entered into an agreement to sell the entire 462 square feet of Khasra No. 352/1 to Ajay Chawda. As per police statement of said Ajay Chawda, he had entered into an agreement with Kanti Bai to 3 purchase the remaining constructed house, after the 104 square feet (including the shuttered shop purchased by Kamlesh Verma) had been sold. The offence came to the knowledge on 20.11.2024, when the complainant visited his shop and received a notice from India Shelter Home Loans. On 11.05.2022, Kanti Bai gifted the disputed land to her son the applicant/accused Arjun Yadav and on the same date, Arjun Yadav, along with his wife Pinki Yadav, secured a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from India Shelter Home Loans by mortgaging the same land. Subsequently, on 19.04.2023, Kanti Bai executed an agreement to sell with Ajay Chawda for the land in dispute, in which applicant/accused Arjun Yadav is a attesting witness. The alleged act of mortgaging the disputed land to a financial institution and subsequently executing a sale agreement for the same land, with the applicant/accused as a consenting witness, prima facie indicates involvement in the commission of offense. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, the police of Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) registered FIR bearing Crime No. 05/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the offence in question. He further submits that the instant case primarily revolves around the activities of Kanti Bai, who executed the gift deed and subsequent agreement to sell for one and the same land. It is next contended that role of the applicant is limited in the crime in question, as he is only attesting witness of the agreement to sell dated 19.04.2023 and a beneficiary of a gift deed dated 11.05.2022. There is 4 no concrete evidence available on record to demonstrate the fact that the applicant actively participated in or had the requisite intent to cheat under Section 420 of the IPC. He further submit that applicant is in detention since 29.01.2025, no criminal antecedents has been reported against the applicant; and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and would submit that the charge- sheet has been filed in this case. However he would fairly submit that as per case diary, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the nature and gravity of the offence; detention period of the applicant; charge-sheet has already been filed; and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Arjun Yadav involved in Crime No. 05 of 2025 registered at Police Station- Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 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 applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. 6 8. 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 amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.02 14:53:15 +0530