1 2025:CGHC:53438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8668 of 2025 Puranik Markande S/o Late Naindas Markande Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Litiya, Out Post Sukuldaihan, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Out Post Sukuldaihan Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 221/2025 registered at Police Station- Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(b), 201 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present case pertains to allegations of cheating and forgery. It has been revealed that the Puranik Markande (Present Applicant), in conspiracy with co- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 accused Hiro Bai Mahilang, fraudulently impersonated and executed a forged sale deed of agricultural land of Durjun Bai's (Applicant Sister). During the course of investigation, it was found that Puranik Markande took Hiro Bai to Rajnandgaon, where he got her photograph afÏxed in place of Durjun Bai's photograph on the Aadhaar Card and obtained a forged Aadhaar in her name. Thereafter, on the pretext that the original land documents of Durjun Bai were lost, he prepared a false afÏdavit, got it notarized, and procured a new land record from the Tehsil OfÏce, Rajnandgaon, inserting Hiro Bai's photograph in place of the genuine owner's. Using these forged documents, accused executed a registered sale deed on 06.04.2023 before the Registry OfÏce, Rajnandgaon, in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 759/1, area 1.61 acres, belonging to Durjun Bai, in favour of Sarita Jaiswal, resident of Rajnandgaon, by presenting Hiro Bai as Durjun Bai. The sale consideration amounting to ₹6,70,000/- was subsequently withdrawn and misappropriated. On verification, the details of the accused persons' bank accounts were obtained from the concerned banks, supporting the allegation of fraudulent monetary transactions. Upon completion of investigation, offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the applicant Puranik Markande has been falsely implicated in the present case due to misunderstanding and 3 exaggeration of facts. The applicant is the real brother of complainant Durjun Bai Mandale, and the property in question originally belonged to their family. The transaction alleged by the prosecution was part of an internal family dispute concerning ownership and transfer of land, which has been given a criminal colour. The entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, such as the Aadhaar card, afÏdavit, and sale deed, all of which are already in possession of the investigating agency. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been arrested on 15.07.2025, and since then he has been in judicial custody and the trial is at an early stage and the next date fixed for framing of charge is 31.10.2025. The charge sheet lists 14 prosecution witnesses, and their examination will take considerable time. Therefore, keeping the applicant incarcerated until conclusion of trial would amount to pre-trial punishment. The prosecution has relied upon Account No. 50230016442474 of Bandhan Bank, which is a joint account in the name of the applicant Puranik Markande and his sister Durjun Bai Mandale (Complainant). The existence of a joint account, by itself, does not establish any fraudulent withdrawal or dishonest misappropriation, particularly when the funds were related to a family property therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the present applicant are grave in nature, involving a well-planned conspiracy of cheating, forgery, and impersonation to fraudulently transfer the ownership of 4 agricultural land belonging to his own sister. It is contended that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused, not only fabricated Aadhaar and land documents but also executed a registered sale deed by presenting another person as the genuine owner, thereby causing substantial financial loss and breach of trust. The investigation has revealed clear evidence of the applicant’s active participation in preparing forged documents and misappropriating the sale consideration. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner of commission, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant and the complainant are real brother and sister and the dispute appears to have arisen out of a family property transaction and the investigation has already been complete and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and in view of the familial relationship between the parties and the facts of the case and further detention of the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let the applicant – Puranik Markande, involved in Crime No. 221/2025 registered at Police Station- Lalbagh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34, 419, 467, 468, 471, 120(b), 201 of IPC, be released on 5 bail on his furnishing a 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 sufÏcient 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 6 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal