1 2025:CGHC:50090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7940 of 2025 Praveen Masih S/o Pramod Masih, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gram Bishrampur, Police Station And Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho- Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 186/2025, registered at Police Station : Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 337, 338 and 3(5) of BNS. (correspondence Sections 420, 465, 566, 467 and 34 of IPC) 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/accused Praveen Masih, in collusion with other accused persons, executed a notarized sale agreement (Bikrinama Ikrarnama) on 06.01.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 with the landowner Kamlesh Agrawal for the sale of land situated at Mouza Darchura, P.H. No. 10, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), bearing Khasra Nos. 592, 594/1, 595, 596/1, 597/1, 597/2, 597/3, 597/4, 599, 600, 600/2, 603, 604, 605/1, 605/2, 608/1, 608/2, 608/3, 608/4, 609, 612/1, 614, 682/1, 682/2, 684, 686, 687/1 — total 27 khasra numbers, measuring 1.644 hectares, for a consideration of ₹48,00,000/- (Forty-Eight Lakh) per acre. As part of the deal, an advance amount of ₹45,00,000/- (Forty-Five Lakh) was paid, out of which ₹10,00,000/- was paid through Axis Bank Bhatapara Cheque No. 06525, ₹10,00,000/- was transferred via RTGS by Aakash Madhwani to Kamlesh Agrawal’s account in Lakshmi Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Raipur (Account No. 000210005038048), and ₹25,00,000/- was paid in cash to Kamlesh Agrawal and Ajay Agrawal, totaling ₹45,00,000. In total, ₹50,00,000 (Fifty Lakh) was allegedly paid to Kamlesh Agrawal and Ajay Agrawal as advance money for the land transaction. However, it has been revealed that the applicant/accused Praveen Masih, along with other co-accused persons, impersonated fake Kamlesh Agrawal and fake Ajay Agrawal, and by preparing forged documents and acting in a pre- planned conspiracy, fraudulently executed the land transaction and cheated the complainant with an intention to misappropriate ₹50,00,000. Based on the written report of the complainant Radheshyam Arya, aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant/accused and other co-accused persons at Police Station – Simga, in Crime No. 186/2025. During investigation, 3 Sections 336(2), 337, and 338 of the BNS were subsequently added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no role in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Laxman Chauhan. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and except the memorandum statement, there is no material or evidence collected against him. The applicant is a poor villager and earns his livelihood as a ragman by collecting scrap from house to house. He has neither prepared nor signed any forged document nor has he impersonated anyone or received any amount from any person. There are no allegations of cheating or forgery directly attributed to him and no incriminating article has been seized from his possession. It is also contended that the alleged land was not sold to any person and as per the prosecution story, only an agreement to sell was executed by other co-accused persons not by the present applicant. Even otherwise, the dispute, if any, appears to be of a civil nature between the complainant and the landowners Kamlesh Agrawal and Ajay Agrawal, and the applicant has been unnecessarily roped into the matter. The applicant is in judicial custody since 02.08.2025 and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation as well as the trial. It is further submitted that co-accused persons namely Laxman Chauhan and Abhya Masih have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 864/2025 and MCRCA No. 1427/2025, vide order dated 27.06.2025 and 16.09.2025 and the 4 case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing therefore, he also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non- applicant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the present case involves a serious offence of large-scale financial fraud and criminal conspiracy. It is submitted that the applicant/accused Praveen Masih, in active connivance with other co-accused persons, executed a forged and fabricated notarized sale agreement by impersonating the real landowners Kamlesh Agrawal and Ajay Agrawal and thereby cheated the complainant of ₹50,00,000/- under a pre-planned conspiracy. He further submits that the modus operandi adopted by the applicant reflects a well- organized criminal design, involving preparation of false documents, impersonation, and deceitful execution of a land transaction with the sole intention to misappropriate the complainant’s money. The gravity of the offence is high, as it not only involves a substantial monetary loss but also undermines the sanctity of lawful property transactions. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely Laxman Chauhan and Abhya Masih, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 864/2025 and MCRCA No. 5 1427/2025, vide orders dated 27.06.2025 and 16.09.2025 respectively and further considering that the case of the present applicant stands on a similar footing and also considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the main allegations are primarily against the co-accused persons and the name of the present applicant appears only in the memorandum statement of co-accused Laxman Chauhan, who had merely stated that there was a property available for sale moreover, the applicant has been in custody since 02.08.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Praveen Masih, involved in Crime No. 186/2025, registered at Police Station : Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 337, 338 and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (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 6 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal