1 2025:CGHC:50630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8031 of 2025 Devendra Kumar Khandel S/o Late Shri Hariram Khandel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rahasbeda, Akaltra, Ward No. 14, P.S. Akaltra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly The Details Of Have Not Been Mentioned In Certified Copy Except The Crime No. ) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. In Charge Akaltra, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10/10/2025 1. This First bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 451/2025 registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant who is the sister in- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 law of the present applicant has registered the present FIR stating, the applicant along with his younger brother have firstly entered wrong detail of the demise of husband of the complainant / elder brother of the applicant. As per the FIR "Husband of the complainant / Elder brother of the applicant" died on 20.09.2022 and the applicant along with his brother have furnished an affidavit before the Municipal Council stating the death of their brother to have taken place on 21.09.2022. Secondly the complainant has further stated that the applicant along with his brother have colluded to remove the name of the complainant form the revenue record of the ancestral property. Hence an FIR under Section 34, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR is wholly motivated by a family dispute arising after the demise of the complainant’s husband (who was the elder brother of the applicant) and is merely an afterthought to harass the applicant and settle civil/family disputes through criminal proceedings, the complainant alleges that the names of herself and her daughter were fraudulently removed from Khasra Nos. 1288/02, 1288/03, 1369/01, 1136, 1158/01, and 1281, but digitally authenticated B1, P1, and P2 revenue records (ANNEXURES A/3–A/8) clearly demonstrate that the names of the complainant and her daughter are duly recorded and verifiable online, negating any allegation of tampering or impersonation by the applicant, the dispute predominantly concerns the validity of the marriage of the complainant with the deceased elder brother, which falls strictly within the domain of the civil court 3 and is beyond the scope of criminal proceedings; the applicant has no capacity to manipulate municipal or revenue records, the FIR, filed after an inordinate delay of approximately three years, reeks of vindictive motive and is intended to sabotage the applicant’s reputation and civil rights, moreover, the elder brother of the applicant, who was also named in the FIR, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court (ANNEXURE A/9), in view of the above, the FIR is baseless, malicious, and cannot be sustained against the applicant and in the present case charge-sheet has not been filed however, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the applicant manipulated official records and committed forgery in collusion with co-accused. The offence involves serious criminal fraud, including cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. Prima facie, the applicant played a key role in illegally altering land records and producing false documents, which significantly prejudiced the complainant’s rights. Accordingly, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and material available in case diary and further considering the fact 4 that it appears that the FIR arises primarily out of a family dispute regarding ancestral property and the validity of the marriage between the complainant and the deceased elder brother of the applicant and the FIR, lodged after an inordinate delay, appears to be an afterthought motivated by personal and familial animosity rather than any genuine criminal act and also considering the fact that the co-accused namely Avinash Kumar Khandel has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1515/2025, vide order dated 26.09.2025 and he is in jail since 12.09.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Let applicant, Devendra Kumar Khandel, involved in Crime No. 451/2025 registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial 5 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. 8. 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