1 2025:CGHC:16718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1272 of 2025 1 - Mayank Tiwari S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Tiwari @ Manharan Lal Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Boipara, Near Mahamaya Mandir, Nardaha, P.S.- Vidhansabha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Gol Bazar Police Station, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashish Tiwari S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o Sai Nagar Axis Bank Lane, Jail Road Ganj Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-03-2025 ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Dewangan, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 09.04.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 03.02.2025 in connection with Crime No. 278/2022 registered at Police Station- Gol Bazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.04.15 14:26:23 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.12.2009 the complainant has lodged a complaint before Police Station against the present applicant alleging that the applicant along with main accused Krishna Kumar Tiwari has executed an agreement for sale of land bearing Khasra No.479 area 71.79 hectares and received Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant for sale consideration. He also executed an agreement for sale of land bearing Khasra No. 594/4 and new number is 975 area 8 acres 88 decimal with the complainant’s friend Dileep Kumar Patel on 01.05.2015 and have received Rs.15,00,000/- as sale consideration. It is also case of the prosecution that Civil Suit No. 5-A of 2010 is pending before Civil Judge Class -1, Raipur and as per the agreement sale deed has to be executed after completion of the trial. During pendency of the agreement landlord Smt. Prabha Devi has registered a Will in favour of Krishna Kumar Tiwari on 21.3.2016 and after her death, Krishna Kumar Tiwari has recorded his name in the revenue records. During pendency of the civil suit, complainant requested the Krishna Kumar Tiwari to execute the sale deed though he had received sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/-, instead of executing the sale deed, he has transferred the land in the name of his son namely Mayank Tiwari. Thus, the aforesaid offence has been committed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he was not aware of the fact that the property has been transferred in his name and there was no information about the agreement. He would further submit that it is purely a civil dispute which can be agitated by filing suit for specific 3 performance of contract, therefore, registration of FIR under Section 420 of IPC is bad -in-law and would pray that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunti and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2023) 6 SCC 109 and Vinod Natesan Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail application would submit that on the basis of complaint and after recording the statements of witnesses prima facie, offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant. He would further submit that in all the cases, the accused cannot take a plea that it is a civil case as the intention of the accused has to be seen, therefore, FIR has been lodged against the applicant and would pray for rejection of the bail petition. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposing the bail application would submit that applicant along with other co-accused persons after receiving the amount instead of execution of sale-deed has transferred the property in the name of his son Mayank Tiwari i.e. present applicant. Thus there is, prima facie, involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and would pray for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 7. This Court in its order dated 05.03.2025 considering the submission of applicant’s counsel wherein he has stated that the applicant has no 4 knowledge about any agreement and the land in question has been gifted to him by his father. Therefore, this Court has directed the applicant to clarify by way of an affidavit whether now he intends to take benefit of the said property which was given by his father but no affidavit has been filed by the applicant despite the order passed by this Court which prima facie reflects that the complainant has been cheated by the applicant along with his father, as such, it cannot be said that it is a civil case arising between the parties. It has been further revealed from the record that applicant’s father is absconding. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1793 of 2023 (Pratibha Manchanda Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 07.07.2023, has considered this issue for grant of bail, particularly offence under Section 420 of IPC wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 16 to 19 as under:- “16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation. 17.In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, this Court carefully considered the principles established by the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab2case. After a thorough deliberation, this court arrived at the following conclusion: "112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail: (i)The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii)The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii)The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv)The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;(v)Where 5 the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;(vi)Impact of grant of anticipatory bail,particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. xxx xxx xxx 18. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that when considering applications for anticipatory bail,courts should consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the specific facts of the case.19.The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 19.The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 9. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme in Pratibha Manchanda (Supra), and considering the material available in the case diary which shows involvement of the applicant in the crime in question as the huge amount has been given by the complainant, 6 instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant, applicant’s father registered the property in the name of his son Mayank Kumar Tiwari, FIR was lodged in the year 2022 and after more than one and a half years, the applicant has been arrested by the Police on 03.01.2025 whereas the other co-accused is still absconding, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case wherein applicant should be granted bail. 10. Accordingly, bail application is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika