1 / 3 2025:CGHC:43614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1300 of 2025 • Kashiram Baghel S/o Late Chunnilal Baghel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Joratarai, Post- Officer-Jhalap, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Gy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 28/08/2025 1. Applicant has filed this second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 105/2021 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.01.2021, complainant lodged a written complaint at the concerned Police Station. He alleged that in 2012-13 he intended to sell his agricultural land through the applicant, a land broker. For this purpose, he handed over his Rinpustika (Kisan Book) to the applicant. As the land could not be sold for 2-3 years, complainant asked for return of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 the Rinpustika, but the applicant claimed it was misplaced and demanded ₹15,000/- for preparation of a new one. Even after receiving the money, the applicant did not return it. Later, on 14.01.2021, while checking land records at the Choice Centre, the complainant discovered that his land had been mortgaged with Canara Bank. On his complaint, investigation was conducted, and an FIR was registered on 03.07.2021 against the applicant, co-accused Kritpal Rana (Gada), and two bank officials, namely Prashant Patel (Dena Bank) and Ujwal Das (Canara Bank). 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that first anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 02.09.2021 and this second application is filed only on the medical ground as he suffered injuries over his clavical bone. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would further submit that there is no change in circumstances and as the first application was dismissed on merits, this second applicant on the same ground is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with application. 6. First application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed on merits by detailed order on 02.09.2021. No document has been placed on record to show that applicant has challenged the order of rejection before the Apex Court or there is any change in circumstances to consider this second application. The ground argued by the counsel for applicant for maintaining this second application for grant of anticipatory bail is that applicant suffered injuries over his clavical bone. 7. Perusal of Annexure A-4 which is discharge summary of Navkar Hospital, Raipur would show that it mentions that applicant suffered motor accidental 3 / 3 injuries and he underwent operation on 09.04.2025, as of now 04 months have already been lapsed from the date of injury suffered by applicant. 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any change in circumstances and merit to entertain this second application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE