1 2025:CGHC:50941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1573 of 2025 1 - Sultana Begum W/o Late Abdul Saheed Munir Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Excise Office, Chhattisgarh College, Bairan Bazaar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Faizal Saheed S/o Late Abdul Saheed Munir Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Excise Office, Chhattisgarh College, Bairan Bazaar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station- Mujgahan, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer For Objector Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2025 registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant namely Minajuddin filed written complaint on 11.05.2025 alleging that the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.10.14 18:54:59 +0530 2 main accused of Sultana Begum had filed a civil suit regarding the death of her husband Shahid Muneer thereafter Shahid Muneer was declared civil death by the order of civil court dated 17.12.2021. The co-accused Sultana Begum taking the advantage of this illegally prepared forged revenue documents she muted her name in the revenue records for the land situated at village Doma Khasra No.216/7 part measuring 1120 hectares. Thereafter co-accused sultana Begum executed power of attorney in the name of the applicant. Thereafter, the property was sold out on 14.08.2024 to third person namely Moti Skehikh. Therefore, the complainant lodged the report on 11.05.2025. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.1 is sister-in-law of the complainant and there is a property dispute between them. It is stated that the applicant No.1 had filed a civil suit regarding the death of her husband namely Shahid Muneer and thereafter, she muted the property on her name vide order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Tahsildaar Raipur, Further, she filed a civil suit for a civil death and also for declaration of title over the property in question. It is also stated that said suit was partly allowed by holding the death of applicant’s husband to be a civil death, however, the question of title over the property in question stood rejected. It is argued that the applicant sold the property in question to various persons and two FIRs were registered against the applicants, out of which, one is of the year 2023, which was lodged by the complainant in the present case and, in which, applicants have already been granted bail. Therefore, the applicants 3 are also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposed the bail application of the applicants and submitted that applicants have flouted the order of the Civil Court and have further concealed the fact that a WPCR was also filed for quashing of the impugned FIR No.11 of 2023 and the same was rejected and, thereafter, when the said order was challenged before the Supreme Court the same was also dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary it transpires that there was a civil dispute between the applicant No.1 and the complainant in respect of land and one more FIR has been registered against the present applicant, which was lodged by the present complainant and, in which, they have been granted bail and the present FIR is also lodged by the complainant because of civil dispute existed between the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants –Sultana Begum and Faizal Saheed 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) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 4 any 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) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant 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)The Applicant shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali