1 2025:CGHC:55365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1683 of 2025 Sharda Rathore W/o Shri Gautam Rathore Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Kosmanda, Police Station And Tahsil- Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Champa District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate S.B. : Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 470/2025, registered at Police Station- Champa, District : Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, Rajkumar Sharma made a written complaint to the police that the applicant and her husband Gautam Rathore (co-accused) are working as real estate agent. They showed the land situated at Kachchi Road, Near Indian Gas Agency bearing Khasra No.9/3, area 0.30 acre at Village-Hathnevra, P.H. No. 08, Ghatouli Chowk and 2 thereafter, executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of his wife namely Smt. Reeta Sharma. However, later on they came to know that the said land is owned and possessed by Devendra Patel and Girdhari Lal Patel. On this complainant, offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 {420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC} have been registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant the sale-deed executed for selling the land bearing Khasra No. 09/3, area 0.30 acres by following the due process of law in which, the complainant and wife were also the witnesses. Further, he contended that there are no chances of cheating with the complainant as the applicant also also purchased the said land from one Totaram Dewangan through the registered sale-deed and in the said transaction also, the present complainant was witness. It is the further contention that earlier in the year 2020 also, the complainant and his wife due to some dispute has registered a false FIR against the applicant and only to harass them, the present FIR has been lodged. He submits that dispute between the parties is of civil in nature which has been criminal colour by falsely implicating the applicant as the land in question was duly verified by the complainants prior to purchase of the same. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, as per the deponent’s knowledge, no criminal antecedent is pending adjudication. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious and prima facie disclose criminality under 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant had allegedly sold a different land which was shown to the complainant by way of 3 registered sale-deed. He submits that the applicant were clearly intentional to sell the complainant a different land and thus, by the alleged sale-deed and by misleading the complainant, the said sale-deed was executed which upon verification was found by the complainant when they tried to mutate the said land. The said act of the applicant clearly proves forgery with the victim. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the risk of tampering with evidence and the prima facie material collected and the investigation is still going on, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the Objector also raises strong objection against the submission of counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant earlier also, have tried to commit forgery with the complainant. He submits that the applicants were clearly aware of the possession of the land by one Devendra Patel, but even then, the applicants fraudulently executed the sale- deed and sold the land to the complainant. Due to illegality committed by the applicant, the complainant have to suffer irreparable loss and therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, the fact that charge-sheet has not been filed, investigation is going on, applicant is a lady as also, contents of the FIR, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Sharda Rathore, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) She shall not directly or indirectly make any 4 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) She shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial (c) She shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY