1 2025:CGHC:48314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6800 of 2025 Vijay Verma S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Verma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Birgaon, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. - Bagbahara, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. JK Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19/09/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 187/2023, registered at Police Station Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Allegation against the present applicant is he along with other co- accused persons impersonated co-accused namely Jugar Bai to be the vendor Neman Bai and co-accused Rajesh Dheever to be co-owner Manoj Chandrakar and sold the impugned land jointly owned by Manaharan Chandrakar (one of the accused persons), Manoj Chandrakar (complainant) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.19 17:43:57 +0530 2 and their mother Neman Bai vide registered sale deed dated 28.9.2022 to one Pushpendra Ghritlahre and thereby all the accused persons cheated original land-owner of the impugned land. Based on above facts, present FIR was registered at the behest of one of the co-owner of the impugned land namely, Manoj Chandrakar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant has been implicated in the instant case showing himself to be a property broker. He would further submit that the applicant only informed about the availability of impugned land to be sold. He never involved in execution of registered sale deed of the impugned land and there is no signature of the applicant in the sale deed. He further submits out of seven accused persons, four accused persons have been granted regular bail by this Court and one co-accused has been granted bail by the Sessions Court and one female co-accused has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.5.2025, charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, hence, present applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the bail application would submit that the applicant has been actively involved in the criminal act of impersonation and cheating, which is evident from his bank statement, which shows that Rs.61,000/- from sale consideration was transmitted from the account of co-accused Manharan Chandrakar to the account of present applicant. He further submits that two criminal antecedents, i.e. Crime No.92/2014 for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 489 IPC and Crime No.509/2024 for the offence under Section 318(4) BNSS have been registered against the applicant and both these case have been registered in Police Station Mahasamund. 3 5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that first offence is an old one, i.e. of the year 2014 and in the second offence, the applicant has been falsely implicated, therefore, he has been granted regular bail in that case by this High Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary of the case with utmost circumspection. 7. Having considered the fact that out of seven accused persons in crime in question, four co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court, one female co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and another co-accused has been granted bail by the Sessions Court and further considering the detention period of the applicant and charge sheet has already been filed and further in respect of criminal antecedents, one incident is an old one i.e. of the year 2014 and in the second offence, the applicant has been granted regular bail and also considering the totality of the case, I feel inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) 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, (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be 4 prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini