1 2025:CGHC:46405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7081 of 2025 1. Kritpal Tandveer S/o Late Sarju Prasad Tandveer Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Lamisrar, P.O. Komakhan, P.S. Komakhan, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant (in jail) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Komakhan, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10.9.2025 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to applicant, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.105/2021 registered at Police Station Komakha, District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 465, 466, 467, 471, 477 (a), 120(B) and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. First bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.4542/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.6.2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant with intent to sell his agriculture property handed over rin pustika SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 (kisan kitaab) to co-accused Kashiram. However, when agriculture property recorded in the name of complainant could not be sold, he demanded back rin pusitka from co- accused Kashiram, which he did not return to complainant and stated that he will arrange duplicate rin pustika for him after obtaining the same from the concerned authority. After some time, the complainant came to know that loan has been obtained from Canara Bank and Dena Bank after mortgaging his property forming part of rin pustika handed over to co- accused Kashiram. Complaint thereafter lodged report in concerned police station against co-accused Kashiram, present applicant and Branch Managers of both banks. During course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 18.5.2025. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that police after investigation filed charge sheet and in charge sheet there is no connecting material available involving applicant with instant crime. Allegation is that after mortgaging property of complainant, loan has been obtained, however, there is no material in the charge sheet to suggest that loan amount has been transferred in the bank account of present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes bail application and submits that after filing of charge sheet, further proceeding is pending to file supplementary charge sheet and some of the documents like application for 3 grant of loan etc. are sent for examination by expert. Prosecution is in the process of collecting bank statement etc. 6. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations against applicant; submissions of learned counsel for respective parties; period of pre-trial detention of applicant, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, this second bail of application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned on the conditions that; • he shall appear before the trial Court concerned regularly on each & every date unless exempted from appearance. • he shall not, in any manner, tamper with prosecution witnesses. • If he is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-