1 2025:CGHC:23418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1057 of 2025 Rahul Agrawal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Garg Aged About 31 Years R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.06.2025 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 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Place Ramanujganuj Chhattisgarh, and for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station – Rajpur, District Balrampur - ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.14 12:08:40 +0530 2 Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Subsequent to the filing of the FIR, Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been added. 2. According to the prosecution's case, the applicant (Rahul Agrawal), along with other co-accused, allegedly sold the joint property (Khasra No. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245, with an area of 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172, and 0.134 hectares, situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj) belonging to the complainant's mother, Jubaro Bai, in a fraudulent manner, without the consent of other co-shareholders. They executed a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2024, in favor of Shivaram, without obtaining permission from the Sub Divisional Officer/Collector, which is required for the sale of tribal land. A copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure A/2. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) are completely missing. He also submits that Smt. Jubaro Bai who is the co-shareholder of the land and her name was also recorded in the records of land bearing Khasra No. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172, 0.134 hectare, situated at tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.) He also submits that Smt. Jubaro Bai had executed the sale deed 3 dated 18.11.2024 in favour of Shivaram, after receiving the consideration amount and the present appellant does not have any role in transaction between Jubaro Bai and Shivaram, neither present appellant is witness of the sale deed nor he was present before the office of Registrar at the time of registry. Jubaro Bai had sold her share after obtaining the consent letter from other co- shareholders. ANNEXURE A/4 is the Copy of the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2024 along with consent letter. He also submits that co-accused persons, namely, Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya vide order dated 22.05.2025 in CRA No. 995 of 2025 and CRA No. 997 of 2025 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, therefore, he prays that the present appellant is also entitled for grant anticipatory bail in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector oppose the criminal appeal of the appellant and submits that the appellant along with the other co-accused persons have fraudulently sold the complainants mothers land without taking consent of other co-shareholders, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the appellant and the fact that the other co-accused persons, namely, Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya vide order dated 22.05.2025 in CRA No. 995 of 2025 and CRA No. 997 of 2025 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, therefore, without further 4 commenting anything on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be grant of anticipatory bail in this case on the ground of parity. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant – Rahul Agrawal, 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. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek