1 2025:CGHC:50501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7963 of 2025 Banamali Mondal S/o Chandramohan Mondal Aged About 60 Years R/o Rajkishore Nagar, Surajmukhi 46, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1238/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Arun AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kumar Dubey, lodged a report alleging that he had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. from Khasra No. 404, situated at Village Mopka, from co-accused Suresh Kumar Mishra, who was the Power of Attorney holder of the original owner, Ramphal Kewat, through a registered sale deed dated 22.03.1999. After mutation, the said plot was recorded in the complainant's name as Khasra No. 404/4. It is alleged that, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the principal accused Suresh Kumar Mishra, in connivance with the deed writer Thakur Mahendra Singh, with dishonest intention, tampered with the duplicate copy of the sale deed meant for the Sub-Registrar’s ofÏce by mentioning Khasra No. 429/2 instead of the original 404. After a lapse of nearly 25 years, when the complainant sold the said land to Smt. Savitri Devi Rathore in 2024 and the purchaser applied for mutation, the present applicant Banmali Mondal, along with co-accused Manoj Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, and Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, filed an objection before the Tehsil ofÏce based on the tampered certified copy of the sale deed, which mentioned Khasra No. 429/2. On the basis of this objection, the complainant’s name was deleted from the revenue records for Khasra No. 404/4, and accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the alleged offences. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the allegations of forgery and tampering relate to the 3 year 1999 and are specifically attributed to co-accused Suresh Kumar Mishra and Thakur Mahendra Singh, and not to the present applicant, the only allegation against the applicant is that he, along with others, raised an objection before the revenue court on the basis of a certified document obtained from a government ofÏce, which by itself does not constitute any criminal offence. The applicant had no knowledge of the alleged forgery committed 25 years earlier. The dispute is essentially civil in nature, concerning the title and identity of the property. He also submits that there is no allegation that the applicant gained any pecuniary benefit or attempted to take possession of the land. The applicant is in jail since 06.09.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has not been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant in collusion with co-accused Manoj Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, and Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, allegedly filed a false objection before the Tehsil ofÏce by relying on a tampered certified copy of the sale deed, in which Khasra No. 429/2 was fraudulently mentioned instead of the original Khasra No. 404/4. On the basis of this objection, the name of the complainant was deleted from the revenue records, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons. She also submits that the said act was done knowingly and dishonestly, with the intention 4 to grab the land in question, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 06.09.2025, the fact that though the applicant along with others, allegedly filed an objection before the revenue court based on a tampered certified copy of the sale deed, which mentioned an incorrect Khasra number and on this basis of that the complainant’s name was deleted from the revenue records by supporting the alleged fraudulent claim over the land and charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case, but considering the fact that the dispute is civil in nature, the applicant was the purchaser of the land in dispute and he has no criminal antecedent, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Banamali Mondal, involved in Crime No. 1238/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil