1 2026:CGHC:18149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 581 of 2026 Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi S/o Ahmad Hussain Aged About 34 Years R/o Mayapur, Kadari, Manjil, Makan No. 55, Shastri Ward Kuwa Gali Mayapur, Ambikapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ambikapur (City Kotawali) District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 161/2026 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur (City Kotawali) District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 10:59:54 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the Late Jamila Khatoon D/o Yaar Mohammad having the land Khasra No 1668/14 admeasuring 10 dismil in her name. That in the 2019 Late Jamila Khatoon have divided the aforesaid land in two parts in her life time. However in the year 2021, the sons of the elder aunt of the complainant namely Ahmad Ali & Mujamil Hashmi executed a Sale-Deed of the aforesaid property without informing to the complainant's father, Uncle & his younger aunt. When the complainant have inspected the documents of sale-Deed its was found that number Rin Pustika of the said land are different. That, the RinPushtika which was attached with the sale deed having number P-1948564 however the original number of rin pushika in L-22055. That, further in the land records of revenue, the real number of the said is L-22055. That, the accused with a intension to sale of the said property in a fraudulent manner without getting the permission from the Collector, made a false rin pushtika number P-1948564, and fraudulently sold the property. Hence, a complainant was made 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant that the entire prosecution story is concocted, baseless, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fide intentions. The complainants had earlier approached the revenue authorities alleging that the applicants executed a sale deed and got the diverted land mutated in their names by issuing a fraudulent Rin Pushtika without obtaining permission from the Collector under Section 165(6)(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and further alleged suppression of facts regarding the existence of a well and trees on the land; however, upon such complaint, the Joint Collector, Surguja directed an enquiry, and the 3 Tehsildar, Ambikapur, after due investigation through the Revenue Inspector and Patwari, reported that the mutation was carried out on the basis of a valid sale deed, that the complainants failed to produce any document regarding diversion of land, and that no revenue record reflected the land as diverted. It was further noted that the complainants had not raised any objection at the time of mutation, and therefore no relief was granted, with liberty to challenge the mutation or sale deed before the competent authority or court. The said report was duly forwarded to the higher authorities. Additionally, the police authorities also conducted an enquiry on the complaint and, vide report dated 15.04.2025, found no commission of any offence or fraudulent transfer of land. Thus, it is evident that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour by the complainants. Despite this, an FIR dated 10.03.2026 has been registered in Crime No. 161/26 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant reserves the right to raise all additional grounds at the time of hearing and undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, without commenting anything 4 further on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav