1 2025:CGHC:31940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 985 of 2025 Santosh Singh S/o Jagsai Marabi, Aged About 40 Years Current Patwari, Halka No.-28 Village- Dumaria Bhatgaon, R/o Quarter No. M380 Ward Number-15, Urjanagar Jarhi, P.S. - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/07/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application has been listed before this Bench in view of the order passed yesterday by a Single Bench (comprising of Hon’ble the Chief Justice) wherein it was directed that this application 2 be listed alongwith Cr.M.P. No. 636/2024 and 551/2024. As such, this Court proceeds to hear this anticipatory bail application on merits. 2. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 38/2024 registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant is alleged to have forged the documents by showing the leased land as the settlement land of Manjhi Rajwar and the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have cheated the complainant by preparing forged documents in a conspiracy. 4. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any of the offence mentioned above, he has falsely been implicated in this aforesaid offence. The applicant had no intention to cheat or forge any documents. The mutation in revenue records was carried out on the basis of lawful registered sale deeds. The applicant did not make any false entries or manipulate official records. The applicant had no role in the preparation or manipulation of revenue records or renumbering. The land was transferred based on historical renumbering data which pre-existed and was provided by the Patwari in charge during the relevant period. The complainant (named Manju Singh), who is a Sub-Inspector, claims the purchase price of Rs 16,00,000/- whereas the registered sale deed clearly mentions Rs. 3,68,000/-. There is no evidence presented to prove the alleged excess payment or that the applicant 3 was party to any misrepresentation. The applicant has received notice under Sections 94 and 189 of BNS on 02.03.2025 and has submitted a detailed reply with documents on 12.03.2025. This shows the applicant is cooperating with the investigation and has not absconded or evaded summons. It is further submitted that in the same crime number involving co accused (seller Rampyari and the then Tehsildar Pratik Jaiswal), a learned Single Judge of this Court, in CRMP No. 636/2024 and CRMP No. 551/2024 has granted interim protection to the petitioners therein vide orders dated 19.03.2024 and 11.03.2024, respectively observing that no coercive steps be taken against them till the next date of hearing. The applicant is a government servant and a permanent resident of District Surajpur. His arrest would result in irreparable damage to the applicant's career, reputation, and dignity in society. The applicant had no motive to forge the document in question and has no personal benefit arising from the same. The act, even if assumed for argument's sake, is more in the nature of a civil dispute rather than a criminal conspiracy. The entire case is based on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is neither necessary nor justified. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the present applicant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that this matter, prima facie appears to be of civil dispute and 4 further that a learned Single Judge of this Court has already granted interim protection to the other co-accused persons, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant M.Cr.C(A) is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Santosh Singh, on executing a personal bond and one 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 along with a coloured 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.11 14:14:45 +0530