1 2025:CGHC:23887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 849 of 2025 Mehendi Husain Ansari S/o Late. Manasrim Husain Ansari Aged About 51 Years R/o Nawagarh, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 13.06.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the FIR was lodged on the ground that land bearing Khasra No. 397/112, area 1.104 hectares, was purchased in the name of the applicant’s wife, Firdos Akhtar Ansari, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 from Santu, and her name was recorded in the revenue records. It was alleged that co-accused Firdos Akhtar Ansari sold this land to the complainant on 30.12.2022 after receiving a total consideration of Rs. 29 lakh. However, after execution of the sale deed, the complainant’s name could not be recorded as the land was sold without obtaining permission under Section 165 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. It was further alleged that the land was granted on lease under Singh Deo Yojna, and the applicant, knowing that collector’s permission was required, still executed the sale deed, thereby committing fraud. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the sale deed was executed on 30.12.2022, and after a lapse of nearly 3 years, the FIR has been lodged. Annexure A/2 is the copy of the sale deed dated 30.12.2022. He further submits that the applicant had purchased the land in question from Setu Ram on 01.03.2021 after the Patwari submitted the required report prior to execution of the sale deed, and the complainant was well aware of this fact. Annexure A/3 is the copy of the sale deed dated 01.03.2021. He also submits that the co-accused, namely Firdos Akhtar Husain, has already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 615/2025 vide order dated 01.05.2025. He also submits that the applicant has also lodged a complaint case against the complainant and her husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, on the ground that they obtained a cheque of Rs. 30 lakh from him under pressure, and in retaliation, the FIR 3 has been lodged against the applicant. Annexure A/5 is the copy of the said complaint case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant's wife, Firdos Akhtar Ansari, sold land to the complainant without obtaining necessary permission under Section 165 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, thereby committing fraud. Further the land was granted on lease under Singh Deo Yojna, and the applicant allegedly knew that collector's permission was required. The sale deed was executed, but the complainant's name could not be recorded due to lack of permission. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material available on record in the case diary, and also considering the fact that although learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused, who is the wife of the applicant, namely Firdos Akhtar Husain, has already been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 615/2025 vide order dated 01.05.2025, the main allegations are against the present applicant, who allegedly committed fraud, further, it is alleged that the applicant’s wife, Firdos Akhtar Ansari, sold the land to the complainant without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 165 of the C.G. 4 Land Revenue Code, thereby committing fraud, further The land was granted on lease under the Singh Deo Yojna, and the applicant allegedly knew that collector’s permission was required. However, despite this, the sale deed was executed, and the complainant’s name could not be recorded due to lack of permission, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Mehendi Husain Ansari, involved in Crime No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan