1 2025:CGHC:56114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9272 of 2025 Salim Javed S/o Late Abdul Sattar Aged About 65 Years Caste Muslim, Occupation Business, R/o Mohalla Mominpura (Parradand) P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) …. Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants arrested in connection with Crime No. 659/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that An F.I.R. has been lodged by the Tahsildar Ambikapur alleging that a forged order dated RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 20.10.2021 passed by Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. RN/16/R/A-6/275/2021 has been obtained by Mohd. Dastgir and given to co-accused Mohd. Murtza who was power of attorney holder of co-accused Meena Gupta. For which Meena Gupta paid 8 lakh rupees to Mohd. Dastgir and name of Meena Gupta was mutated in records on the basis of this forged order. It is further alleged that the applicant acted as mediator between Meena Gupta and Mohd. Dastgir obtained money from Meena Gupta and Mohd. Murtza and handed over it to Mohd. Dastgir to handle the case at Board of Revenue. Thereafter Mohd. Dastgir had given forged order to Meena Gupta. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that co-accused persons have been granted bail vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8222/2025, 09.05.2025 passed in MCRCA No.704/2025, 02.04.2025 passed in MCRCA No.451/2025, and there was no recovery of any money made from the possession of the applicant nor he was the beneficiary of that transaction. It is submitted that the applicants are in jail since 11.09.2025, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation which has been levelled against the applicant and the co-accused which, is that they have been forgering the orders of the Board of Revenue with respect to the sale and purchase of land, and the applicant used to take 3 money from one Meena Gupta, and the prosecution case goes to show that he has actively participated in the present case, moreover, the co-accused Meena Gupta has been granted bail only on the ground that she is the lady. As such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation which has been levelled against the applicant and the co-accused which, is that they have been forgering the orders of the Board of Revenue with respect to the sale and purchase of land, and the applicant used to take money from one Meena Gupta, and the prosecution case goes to show that he has actively participated in the present case, moreover, the co-accused Meena Gupta has been granted bail only on the ground that she is the lady, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, this bail application of applicant – Salim Javed involved in Crime No. 659/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 4 9. 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 Rajshekhar