1 2025:CGHC:50386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7530 of 2025  Chandrashekhar Sahu S/o Durjan Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Bazar Chowk, Bhoring, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Purnachand, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. along with Mr. T.S. Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9-10-2025 1) This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant before this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 76/2021 registered at Police Station–Civil Lines, District–Raipur (C.G.), for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. 2 2) As per the prosecution’s story, one Vivek Agrawal filed a complaint under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to the effect that on 22.7.2015, Durjan Sahu represented himself as owner of Khasra Nos. 1589,1591,1630,1648,1665,1880/30,1904/2,3397,3466,3473,557 3 and 5597/2 total ad-measuring 2.03 hectares situated at Village Bhoring, Tehsil & District Mahasamund. Durjan Sahu entered into a sale agreement with complainant for consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs and received Rs. 8 lakhs in presence of witnesses. The agreement was notarized by Notary Advocate Shri Brijesh Tiwari, District Court Raipur in presence of witnesses – (i) Dhameprasad Anant and (ii) Shekhar alias Chandrashekhar Sahu. It is further alleged in the complaint case that the present applicant along with Nandu Joshi and Lallu Dhrilahare with intent to get the money, executed a forged sale agreement and present applicant represented Durjan Sahu as his father and also forged Rin Pustika No. 0000173. It is also alleged that a request was made for the refund of said amount but no heed was paid. Thereafter, Learned Court below directed the Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur to register FIR and file charge-sheet. Subsequently, FIR was registered on 14.2.2021. Present applicant remained absconding since registration of FIR and pursuant to permanent arrest warrant, he was arrested on 21.8.2025 by the police. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR, there is no allegation to the effect that consideration amount was handed 3 over to the present applicant and he was just a witness of the financial transaction which was entered between the complainant and Durjan Sahu. He further submits that Raipur Police never approached the applicant though he was staying in his house. He contends that two co-accused – Nandu Joshi and Lallu Dhrilahare have already been enlarged on bail, therefore he prays to allow this application. 4) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the complainant has already been examined before the learned Trial Court wherein he has categorically stated that consideration amount was handed over to the present applicant. He further submits that applicant remained absconding from the date of registration of FIR i.e. 14.2.2021 till the date of arrest. He contends that other co-accused were granted bail as they were not involved in the financial transaction. He further submits that this application deserves to be rejected. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) From a perusal of the case diary and the submissions made herein above, it is quite vivid that FIR was registered on 14.2.2021 and applicant remained absconding since then and he was arrested on 21.8.2025, only after issuance of permanent arrest warrant. The contents of FIR would reveal that though Durjan Sahu was not the owner of property, he entered into a sale agreement with the complainant. Present applicant represented Durjan Sahu as his father and affixed his photograph in the Rin 4 Pustika. Also, the complainant in evidence has stated that Rs. 8 lakhs was handed over to the present applicant. 7) With regard to the contention made by Mr. Purnachand to the effect that other co-accused have been granted bail, the co- accused namely, Nandu Joshi and Lallu Dhrilahare were not involved in the financial transaction, thus, the allegations leveled against the present applicant are entirely different from the allegations leveled against Nandu Joshi and Lallu Dhrilahare. 8) Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Consequently, this bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.09 17:05:43 +0530