1 2025:CGHC:32268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1018 of 2025 Zeeshan Siddiqui S/o Latif Ahmed Siddiqui, Aged About 35 Years R/o- Siddiqui Manzil New Basti Raja Talab Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Mujgahan, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. 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. 96/2025 registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant, namely Minajuddin, filed a written complaint on 11.05.2025 alleging that the co-accused, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.11 18:31:49 +0530 2 Sultana Begum, had filed a civil suit regarding the death of her husband, Shahid Muneer, and thereafter, Shahid Muneer was declared civilly dead by the order of the civil court. Taking advantage of this, the co-accused Sultana Begum allegedly prepared forged revenue documents and, with the help of the applicant and other co-accused persons, got her name mutated in the revenue records for land situated at Village Doma, Khasra No. 216/7 (part), measuring 1.120 hectares. It is further alleged that on 16.08.2024, the co-accused Sultana Begum sold the property to a third person and used the applicant as a witness to the sale deed, and therefore, he has been arrayed as an accused. A copy of the First Information Report is annexed as ANNEXURE A-2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He argues that the applicant has no knowledge about the said crime. The applicant was merely a witness to the sale deed, and therefore, he has been falsely arrayed as an accused. The applicant has no involvement in the present crime. He submits that the prosecution agency has also registered another crime against the co-accused, Sultana Begum, bearing Crime No. 11/2023, registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for the same offences arising out of the same property, and the persons involved in the complainant’s side are also the same. In that case, the co-accused, Sultana Begum, has been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.02.2023. He further submits that FIR bearing Crime No. 11/2023 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, 3 against the co-accused Sultana Begum contained allegations that she had illegally mutated her name in the revenue records in place of her late husband, Shahid Muneer. Now, a member of the same family has lodged another FIR, bearing Crime No. 96/2025 (present crime), alleging that this time, the co-accused Sultana Begum, along with the applicant, sold the said property to a third person. The complainants belong to the same family and are misusing the process of law by registering two subsequent FIRs for the same transaction, which is an abuse of the process of law. He also submits that no offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are made out against the applicant, as the applicant has never prepared any forged documents as alleged in the FIR. The mere fact that the co-accused Sultana Begum executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Junaid and used the applicant as a witness in the registered sale deed does not mean that the applicant has committed cheating with the complainant. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation 4 against the applicant is that he signed as a witness in a sale deed, moreover, the fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Zeeshan Siddiqui, 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 his 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek