1 2025:CGHC:39303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1198 of 2025 • Sukhvindar Singh Bhatiya S/o Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatiya Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Farmer, R/o House No. 288, Ward No. 30, Ganj Line, Lakholi Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Bagnadi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 06.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 19/2016, registered at Police Station – Bagnadi, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the written report was lodged by the complainant Udayram patel before the Police station Bagnadi that VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.08.13 11:02:42 +0530 2 he is the permanent resident of ward 29, Dongargarh and owns a land bearing Khasra No. 109/07 area 4 acre situated at village - Kaneri Tahsil - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon. It has been alleged by the complainant that co-accused Naresh Kumar prepared a forged power of attorney in the name of complainant and sold his land to the present applicant on 21.12.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-. It has further been alleged that the complainant never appeared before the registry office on 23.09.2011 and had never executed any power of attorney in favour of any other person. It was when the present applicant asked the complainant to show him his land, the complainant came to know about the said incident. The police on receiving the complaint registered an FIR against the present applicant and the co-accused persons. Therefore, the present applicant for the commission of offences as mentioned herein above therefore the applicant is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the said village and was never absconding. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against him. An application for anticipatory bail was filed, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court solely on the ground that the applicant had been absconding since the year 2016. He further argues that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which, in law, cannot be used as evidence against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant had no involvement in the alleged offence, and his name has been 3 falsely roped in due to enmity with a rival group. He further submits that the investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet was filed, wherein the applicant was shown as absconding. However, all the co-accused persons have already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2024. The evidence collected by the prosecution does not indicate any direct or indirect involvement of the applicant, except for the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, submitting that in the present case co-accused were arrested and have been acquitted by the learned JMFC, Dongergarh, District- Rajnandgao vide order dated 09.09.2024, while the present applicant remained absconding. A charge sheet under Section 299 CrPC was filed and showing him as absconding. he further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of the offence, and investigation against him is ongoing, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available in the case diary, the allegation levelled against the co- accused Naresh Kumar, who has prepared a forged power of attorney in the name of complainant and sold his land to the present 4 applicant on 21.12.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, during the examination of remaining co-accused persons doubtful circumstances have arose regarding the involvement of the applicant, further the fact that the trial of the instant case has already been concluded and the co-accused persons have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and the applicant is stated to be absconding during the entire trial, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Sukhvindar Singh Bhatiya involved in Crime No.19/2016, registered at Police Station – Bagnadi, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali