1 2025:CGHC:18959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1398 of 2025 1 - Harjinder Singh S/o Guruchanran Singh Aged About 56 Years Director Raipur Agro Industries Ltd. Village Seri Khedi P.S. Mandir Hasaud Teh. And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Compainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Mandir Hasaud District - Raipur (C.G.) (Accused) 2 - Hukum Prasad Sharma S/o Late R.S. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Sec. 01 Professor Colony Purani Basti Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) Office Address Patwari Hlaka No. 45 Mova District - Raipur (C.G.) Prsent Address ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. V. Purohit, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/04/2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) against the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur, in Bail 2 Petition No. 416/2025 whereby the anticipatory bail has been granted to the respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 is an accused in the crime No. 333/2024 registered at Police Station- Mandir Hasaud, Dist- Raipur for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 120 B and 34 of IPC. The respondent No. 2/accused was a Patwari and was posted at Patwari Halka No. 77, Village- Serikhedi, Dist- Raipur. The petitioner/complainant has filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, with the allegation that he purchased the land of Khasra No. 545/12, Area 0.688 Hec. through a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1997 and came into possession of the same. He established a brick kiln and nursery, but his boundary wall was demolished for the purposes of the construction of the national highway, and he was paid compensation. After about 21 years, one Jashwant Singh tried to encroach on his land, and then the Tahsildar, Mandir Hasaud has issued an injunction order in his favour. On being inquired, it was found that the co-accused Jashwant Singh, in collusion with the respondent No. 2, prepared a forged map and showed it in his registry. A complaint was made to the Collector, Raipur, on 20.06.2022, and on his instance, the Station House Officer, Mandir Hasaud, inquired into the matter, but no proper inquiry was conducted. However, on the application made by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and under the direction of the learned trial Court, the offence of Crime No. 333/2024 has been registered against the respondent No. 2 and other co-accused persons. 3. The co-accused Jashwant Singh was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.04.2024 by the learned trial Court, and the other co-accused Deepak Kumar Bhandulkar has also been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court on 04.02.2025. The present respondent No. 2 has also 3 been granted anticipatory bail on 14.02.2025 by the learned trial Court, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is sufficient material against the respondent No. 2/accused which inculpate him with the offence in question. From the revenue documents as well as the sale deed of the co-accused Jashwant Singh, it clearly reveals that the present respondent No. 2 has manipulated the revenue map of the subject land and thereby committed forgery of the revenue documents. The present respondent No. 2, being the Patwari, should have maintained the correctness of the revenue records, but he indulged in the manipulation of the same. He would draw the attention of this Court to the revenue documents annexed with the petition and submits that the act of the respondent No. 2 is more grievous than the other co-accused persons. Releasing the respondent No. 2 on anticipatory bail would defeat the ends of justice and would encourage the wrongdoers. He would also submit that the learned trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 without considering the material available in the case diary and the gravity of the offence, and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ State would submit that the learned trial Court has passed its order after considering the material collected during the investigation and granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, it reveals that the petitioner, who is the complainant in the case, has filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. His application was allowed, and under the direction of the learned trial Court, the offence of Crime No. 333/2024 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120B and 34 4 of IPC was registered in which the present respondent No. 2 is also an accused. The allegation against the respondent No. 2 is that he, being the Patwari, in collusion with the co-accused Jashwant Singh, issued an incorrect revenue map of the subject land of Khasra No. 545/1 of Village- Serikhedi. It also reflects that a Civil Suit was initiated by the respective parties with respect to the possession and identification of the subject land. Between 1999 to 2021, three civil suits were filed by the respective parties. 8. The learned trial Court, after considering the nature of allegation, nature of dispute between the parties and the pendency of the civil suit between 1999 to 2021 and further considering that the other co-accused persons Jashwant Singh and Deepak Kumar Bhandulkar have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 30.04.2024 and 04.02.2025 respectively, and the case of the respondent No. 2 is also similar to the case of other accused persons, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2 also in which, I do not found any perversity or illegality to exercise the jurisdiction under section 483 (3) of the BNSS and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2. There appears to be no allegation that the respondent No. 2 has violated the conditions of anticipatory bail or involved in tempering with the evidence. 9. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.03 12:32:49 +0530