1 2025:CGHC:36513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5862 of 2025 Md. Dastgir Ansari S/o Late Md. Siddique Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No.03, Jail Road, Infront Of Forest Rest House, Ramanujganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr.Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 595/2024 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District – Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),338, 336(3),340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. That case of the prosecution in brief is that the Tehsildar of Ambikapur wrote a letter to the Station House Officer of Police Station Ambikapur VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.30 19:34:44 +0530 2 Kotwali, requesting the registration of the First Information Report against the accused persons. The Tehsildar had been instructed by the Collector Surguja to investigate the authenticity of four orders purportedly passed by the Board of Revenue in four separate matters, two of which were filed in the names of the accused persons. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the actual orders and the fabricated orders differed significantly, and it was concluded that the original orders had been tampered with, constituting a criminal offence. Consequently, the police station Kotwali, District Ambikapur (C.G.) registered an offence against the accused persons under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence or material on record linking him to the preparation or use of any forged documents. The prosecution has not produced any concrete or prima facie evidence, and no recovery has been made from the applicant.The alleged forged documents were submitted before the Tehsildar's Court, which is a Revenue Court under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. As per Sections 215 and 223 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), cognizance of forgery involving court documents can only be taken upon a complaint from the concerned court. However, in this case, the FIR was lodged based on an administrative communication, which is legally impermissible. The applicant was not named in the original FIR and has been subsequently implicated without any cogent basis. He is only educated up to Class 5, suffers from serious health issues (kidney stones and slip disc), and is dependent on regular medical treatment which he is not receiving in custody. Medical documents and his educational record have 3 been filed. The case is documentary in nature, the charge sheet has already been filed on 22.06.2025, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence. Further, co-accused Md. Farooq has already been granted bail by this Court on 19.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 1566/2025 who has also preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No.642/2023 wherein a direction was given to the Tehsildar, Ambikapur to comply with the order passed on 01.09.2020 by the Revenue Board. In view of the legal infirmities, the applicant’s poor health, and the completion of investigation, he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. The learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application. He further submits that there are total 13 criminal antecedents against the applicant of identical nature wherein he played fraud with various persons by committing forgery in the order passed by Board of Revenue, Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the present applicant is the main accused person who is involved in forgery of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, further there are total 13 criminal antecedents against the applicant of identical cases and defrauded various persons who are the victim of crime and also the case of the applicant is different from the other co-accused persons, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Md. Dastgir Ansari, involved in Crime No. 595/2024 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District – Ambikapur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 4 318(4),338, 336(3),340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav