1 2025:CGHC:58367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9735 of 2025 Surendra Aayam S/o Dirpal Gond Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Murka, Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj(C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2025 registered at Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Anil Kujur, Forest Range Assistant, Manikpur, lodged a written report on 30.07.2025 at Police Station Chalgali alleging that accused Vipin RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Kishore Kujur, along with co-accused Surendra Ayam, Avinash Dubey, and Kunjan Rajak alias Ekka Sir, was involved in preparing and distributing fake forest rights certificates. During the inquiry, the present applicant Avinash Dubey and co-accused Surendra Ayam allegedly stated that co-accused Vipin Kishore Kujur and others had prepared forged forest rights pattas and had accepted money for preparing such documents. On the basis of the complaint and the recovery of fake pattas, certificate booklets, mobile phones, and a motorcycle, Police Station Chalgali registered Crime No. 61/2025 against the accused persons under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He submits that the applicant is an unemployed young boy who had merely followed the instructions of co-accused Kundan Rajak for G.P.S. Survey Location work and, acting on his directions, had worked only for two days and received wages of Rs. 500/- per day, the applicant was misled by the co-accused and, under the bona fide belief that genuine forest rights documents were being prepared, became a victim rather than a perpetrator. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Vipin Kishor Kujur and Avinash Dubey have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.10.2025 and 14.11.2025 in MCRC Nos. 7420/2025 and 9167/2025 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 27.07.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to 3 take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He also submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, involving preparation and distribution of fake forest rights certificates, which directly affects public administration and forest governance. It is further submitted that during inquiry, the applicant himself admitted that forged forest right pattas were prepared and money was collected for issuing such documents. He argues that fake pattas, certificate booklets, mobile phones, and other incriminating materials have been recovered, clearly indicating the applicant’s active involvement in the offence. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.07.2025, the fact that the accused Vipin Kishore Kujur, along with co-accused Surendra Ayam (present applicant), Avinash Dubey, and Kunjan Rajak alias Ekka Sir, was preparing and distributing fake forest rights certificates and during inquiry, the applicant and co-accused admitted that forged pattas were prepared and money was taken for them, but other co-accused 4 persons, namely, Vipin Kishor Kujur and Avinash Dubey have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.10.2025 and 14.11.2025 in MCRC Nos. 7420/2025 and 9167/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Surendra Aayam, involved in Crime No. 61/2025 registered at Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on 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 5 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 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan