1 2025:CGHC:61845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1981 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Marbal S/o Shri P.R. Marbal Aged About 56 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Collector, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Resident Of M.I.G. 46, Geetanjali Enclave Ring Road No. 2, In Front Of Yash Super Market Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station- Lailunga, District – Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General. For Objector : Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta and Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 312/2025 registered at Police Station – Lailunga, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 417, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 470 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC, Gharghoda, alleging therein that he is acquainted with the accused Surendra Gupta, who indulged into sale and purchase of land and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 earlier the complainant had purchased the land through accused Surendra Gupta. In the year 2018, the accused Surendra Gupta along with accused Biharilal Patel son of Nankiram Patel came to the complainant and they proposed for sale of the land bearing khasra no. 208 admeasuring area 0.773 hectare situated at Village Jhnkabahal, which land was owned and recorded in the name of accused Biharilal Patel. On the basis of said proposal, the complainant agreed for purchasing the said land in consideration amount of Rs. 11,84,000/- and he requested for inspection of revenue records. The applicant along with accused Surendra Kumar Gupta & Biharilal Patel went to Halka Patwari namely Parmeshwar Netam and the said Parmeshwar Netam after inspecting the record, informed that the said land bearing khasra no. 208 is recorded in the name of accused Biharilal Patel and there is no hurdle to sale out the said land. 3. Thereafter on 23.01.2018 the said Biharilal Patel has executed registered sale deed in receiving the entire 11,84,000/- from the favour of complainant by consideration amount of Rs. complainant and the accused Surendra Gupta has put his signature in the sale deed as one of witness and at the time of execution of sale deed, the revenue documents like Bikri Chhant Parchi was prepared by Patwari Parmeshwar Netam. After execution of sale deed, on the basis of his own request, the said Biharilal Patel used to cultivate the subject land on rent of Rs. 12,000/- per year and the said Biharilal Patel was continuously given the rent amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the complainant. The complainant applied for mutation of subject land in his name and the said Parmeshwar Netam has assured the 3 complainant that the subject land has been mutated in his name in revenue records. On 15.09.2023 the complainant has uploaded B-1 through online app, upon which, he came to know that the subject land is recorded in the name of Venudhar son of Ishwar Prasad. After knowledge of said fact, the complainant enquired from the Patwari namely Parmeshwar Netam regarding mutation of subject land and the said Patwari did not give satisfactory answer. Thereafter the complainant has enquired about the status of subject land from Incharge Patwari namely Mannu Siwar and the said Incharge Halka Patwari intimated that the said land is recorded in the name of Venudhar in revenue records and the said land was never recorded in the name of Biharilal Patel or in the name of complainant. The said Venudhar has transferred the said land in the name of Jindal Power & Steel Limited by executing sale deed. Thus, the accused Surendra Gupta, Biharilal Patel and Parmeshwar Netam have committed cheating and fraud with the complainant. 4. On the basis of above application, vide order dated 17.11.2025, the learned Magistrate has directed the respondent no. 1 for registration of FIR for the offence against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Pursuant to the said order dated 17.11.2025, the FIR bearing Crime No. 312/2025 has been registered against the accused persons including present applicant. Hence, this application. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the incident took place in the year 2018 and the FIR was registered in the year 2023 after a delay of 5 years as a result of order 4 dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Magistrate for registration of FIR, but the complainant has not filed by complaint before the concerned Police Station as well as before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and directly filed application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Magistrate concerned. It is also submitted that the applicant happens to be the government servant. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, it transpires that the applicant happens to be the government servant, furthermore, the incident took place in the year 2018 and the FIR was registered in the year 2023 after a delay of 5 years as a result of order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Magistrate for registration of FIR, but the complainant has not filed by complaint before the concerned Police Station as well as before the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh and directly filed application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Magistrate concerned, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ashok Kumar Marbal on executing a 5 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 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 themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rajshekhar