2025:CGHC:7364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1311 of 2024 Order Reserved on 23.01.2025 Order delivered on 10.02.2025 1. Sultana Begum W/o Abdul Shahid Munir Aged About 52 Years R/o Excise Department Beside Chhatisgarh College Bairan Bazar Raipur , Tehsil And Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Faizal Shahid S/o Abdul Shahid Munir Aged About 29 Years R/o Excise Department Beside Chhattisgarh College Bairan Bazar Raipur, Tehsil And Dist Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House OfÏcer Saraswati Nagar, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/Objector: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey and Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.02.10 18:09:16 +0530 1. This is the second anticipatory bail filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who have apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 11/2023, registered at Police Station– Saraswati Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468, 471, 120-B/34 of the IPC. First bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRCA No. 1251 of 2023 on 02.01.2024. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a complaint was filed by complainant Mohammad Israr alleging that the applicants by playing fraud have prepared forged power of attorney and with the aid of forged power of attorney, thy attempted to sell the ancestral property of deceased Azimuddin, Shahid Munir Nafeesuddin and their legal representatives. Further case of the prosecution, that deceased Azimuddin died way back 25 years, Sahid Munair was missing since 1995 and Nafeesuddin was mentally retarded person. The accused taking advantage of mental status of Nafesssuddin, has played fraud, got mutated their names in the revenue records and sold the joint family property of the victims and executed sale deed of property situated at PH No. 107, Revenue Circle Raipur, Sheet No. 06, plot No. 7/1, khasra No. 213/1 total area 1500 Sq. foot on 16.06.2014. During investigation, statements of Sultana Begam, other witnesses were recorded and documents were seized which clearly demonstrate that the applicant with co-accused for earning illegal means have impersonated other person as Sahid Munir and sold the ancestral property of the victims. It is also alleged that the applicant kept the entire sale consideration for their own purpose and deceived the State Government by evading tax lablity of Rs. 6, 45,000/-. On investigation, offence under Sections 420,120-B,467, 468, 471 of the IPC was registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case and they were not involved in the offence registered against them. He would further submit that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and against the order of mutation and there is a remedy of victim to challenge the same before the higher forum. He would further submit that on 05.12.1995 partition between Shahid Munia and his four brothers has already taken place and Additional Tahsildar District Raipur vide order dated 06.10.2022 has substituted the name of the applicants in place of Shahid Munia which was jointly recorded in the name of all brothers. The names of applicants were not recorded in the land which was recorded in the name of Saahuddin and Meenhazudin. He would further submit that on the basis of decree, Additional Tahsildar, Raipur recorded the name of applicants in the revenue records. He would further submit the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and it has been given colour of criminal proceedings. He would further submit that no divorce between applicant Sultana Begum and deceased was taken place. He would further submit that after recording the name of the applicants in place of Shahid Munir they have executed a sale deed in favour of Mayank Agrawal in respect of khasra No. 154/6 area 0.533 hectare which was earlier recorded in the name of Shahid Munir. He would further submit that co-accused was granted bail by this Court in MCRCA Nos. 235/2023, 1154 of 2024 on 05.04.2023 and 14.10.2024, therefore, prays for extending the benefit of Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to the applicant also. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the objector would submit that there was active participation of the applicants in preparing forged power of attorney and kept the entire sale consideration for their own purpose and did not give the share to other shareholders of the property also deceived the State Government, evaded the tax amounting to Rs. 6, 45,000/-. He would further submit that in the case even if we presumed that the applicant No. 1 was not divorced at best she will be entitled for ¼ share of the undivided property, she does not have any right like Hindu woman to claim partition whenever there is partition, she will be entitled for ¼ share in the property, but the applicant No. 1 is not entitled to claim any right over the property as she was divorced and divorced wife does not claim any right over the property of the husband barring the maintenance under the Mohammadan Law. Thus he would submit that the applicants were involved in commission of offence, therefore, the application for grant of bail may be rejected. 5. On the other hand learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and would submit that the applicants has not impleaded the complainant in the mutation proceeding and obtained mutation order in a fraudulent manner in collusion with the concerned Tahsildar. He would further submit that the applicants have played active role in making forged power of attorney and for earning illegal means and they have sold the land, evaded the tax to the Government, therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the facts placed on record, it is quite vivid that it has been alleged by the objector that the divorce was taken place between the applicant No.1 and Shahid Munir in the year 1992 which was vehemently objected and contended by the applicant No.1 that she has obtained decree from the competent Court in the year 1995 regarding civil death decree of late Shahid Munir, therefore, whether divorce has rightly been taken place between them is required to be ascertained by the competent Civil Court. Similarly, submission of the applicant that decree of civil death obtained by her is true or not has to be ascertained by the competent Civil Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the objector has filed certificate of the Committee which has given certificate of divorce between applicant No.1 and late Shahid Munir whether it is true or false is required to be proved in a duly instituted civil proceeding before the competent Court of law. Further submission of the objector that the applicants have evaded tax liability but no material has been placed on record to substantiate his submission. 8. Thus, from the above discussion, it is quite vivid that the allegation levelled against the applicants is prima-facie, a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal proceeding, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants namely – Sultana Begum and Faizal Shahid, on each of them executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (a) They 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh