1 2025:CGHC:9454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 675 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam Prasad Jaiswal S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o Rajatalab, P.S. Civil Lines, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Kumar Verma S/o Sukhlal Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Tekari, P.S. Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/02/2025 1. The present petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur passed in 2 Complaint Case No. 1723 of 2019 whereby the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense presence of the applicant has been dismissed and warrant of arrest has been issued and the order dated 22.07.2024 has been set-aside, also, the application under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been rejected. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant/respondent no. 2 Mahesh Kumar Verma has filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Raipur alleging that in the village Giroud, Revenue Circle Raipur, Agriculture land Khasra No. 811 admeasuring area 0.506 hectare, which was recorded in the joint name of the complainant and his brother late Dev Prakash and other and without the consent of the complainant, the present applicant with connivance of the other co-accused in a conspiracy, executed registered sale deed on 21.11.2005 and the complainant has made a complaint to the concerned Police Station but no action has been taken and after recording the statement of the complaiant as witnesses, the JMFC registered offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against the present applicant and two of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed namely Neelambar Verma and Raj K. Agrawal. However, no cognizance was taken against the Sub-Registrar Shiv Kumar for want of sanction. The learned Court below has taken cognizance in the said complaint and registered the case as Complaint Case No. 1723/2019 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. Earlier a non-bailable/warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Court below against the applicant for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC. The applicant preferred an anticipatory bail application before the is Hon’ble court which was registered as MCRCA No. 97 of 2023, against the issuance of aforesaid non-bailable warrant of arrest. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 was pleased to allow the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned 3 court below vide impugned order dated 16.07.2024 has rejected the application filed by the applicant to dispense with the present and issued warrant of arrest against him. The applicant again filed an application under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023 before the learned JMFC, Raipur to recall the warrant of arrest but the same has been rejected by the lower court. 5. Learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner continuously remained absent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of order sheet dated 16.07.2024 shows that the accused remained absent on 02.05.2024, 06.06.2024, 02.07.2024, 03.07.2024 even though it was ordered by the Court to the accused to appear in person. Counsel for the applicant contended that the petitioner filed an application under Section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023 but the same was rejected by the court below. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not well and was unable to present in the court on 16.07.2024. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it will be justified to allow this petition. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner shall produce a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- and shall appear in person before the trial court on each and every hearing and if at any event, he remain absent and the reason assigned for his absence is not justified to satisfaction of the trial Court, the Trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition is disposed off. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima