1 2025:CGHC:1350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1495 of 2024 1 - Pawara Bai Yadav W/o Late Jagatram Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Suttara P.S. Katghora District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Katghora District - Korba (C.G.) ( Non Applicants) 2 - Bhagirathi S/o Late Ful Sai Aged About 47 Years Caste Yadav R/o Suttara P.S. Katghora District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. For Complainant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 09.01.2025 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. As the case diary is available, it is heard finally. 4. This is the Second bail application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 apprehending her arrest in connection with the Crime No.264/2022 registered at Police Station – Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. First 2 application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court. 5. The Case of the prosecution in brief is that a report was lodged by the complainant against present applicant and others that a property comprised in piece of land i.e. Khasra No.140 at village – Sutarra, Tahsil – Podi Uproda, District – Korba was recorded in the name of their ancestor – Phoolsai Yadav. The present applicant, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got her name mutated in the revenue records and since, the said property was taken into land acquisition scheme of Union of India namely Bharatmala Pariyojana by the National Highways Authority of India, compensation to the tune of Rs.30,77,460/- was obtained by the applicant by committing cheating. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the first application was dismissed on merits, however, the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.30,77,460/- which the applicant has received as per allegation, has already been paid to the complainant, namely, Bhagirathi. As such the dispute between the complainant and applicant has entered into a compromise and compromise deed has also been appended with the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he submits that the application may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Shri Tripathi submits that the parties have entered into a compromise, they have settled their dispute amicably and the amount of Rs.30,77,460/- has already been received by the complainant (Bhagirathi). 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 9. Having considered the fact that since the parties have entered into the compromise and compromise deed has also appended with this application, therefore, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting office with the following conditions:- (i) That the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigation officer; (ii) that the applicant 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Saxena