1 2025:CGHC:33721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5443 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Kumar Rai S/o Ramsurat Rai Aged About 49 Years R/o M.I.G. 883, Nandini Road, Jamul, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station Supela, Durg, C.G. 2 - Bipin Agrawal S/o Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o 27-4-8, Flat No. Ff1, Rajendra Tower, Temple Vidhi, Kakinada, East Godavari, A.P., Through His Power Of Attorney Holder, Nikhil Mittal, S/o Anil Kumar Mittal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Block No. 9 Plot No. 1, 2, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, Durg, C.G. 3 - Aasma Khatoon D/o Mohd. Islam Aged About 36 Years R/o L.I.G.- I 40/41, Ward No. 16, 32 Acre Housing Board, Bhilai, Durg, C.G. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Samdarsh Nirankari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/07/2025 1. Applicant has filed this Fifth Bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 870/2023 registered at Police Station – Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Third bail application bearing MCRC No.7303/2024 of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2024 considering that out of forged BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.22 10:45:54 +0530 2 sale transaction, the amount of Rs.1.32 Crore has been transferred in the account of applicant. As submitted by counsel for State police seized the copies of bank accounts during the course of investigation, which is part of the charge-sheet. 3. From the aforementioned facts it is appearing that applicant is one of the main accused and has hatched the conspiracy for commission of offence and sold the land recorded in the name of Devnandan Yadav, who is residing in Jamshedpur. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that other co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicant may also be enlarged on bail on parity is concerned, role played of other co- accused persons is not similar to the allegation against the applicant. Though it is argued that learned counsel for the applicant that there was transaction of Rs.1.00 Crore in the account of Tamradhwaj Bandhe, however, upon asking by this Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not be able to point out the transfer of such amount to account of Tamradhwaj Bandhe. 5. Considering the nature of allegation and the role played by applicant in commission of crime of selling the property of other person residing out of the city by forged documents I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application and enlarged the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Balram