1 2026:CGHC:2036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 387 of 2026 Dinesh Patel S/o Rameshwar Patel Aged About 35 Years Posted As Patwari (P.H. No. 12) R/o Mana Basti Police Station, Mana Camap, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station A C B / E O W, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 30/2025, registered at Police Station – ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.14 11:39:34 +0530 2 Corruption Act, 1988. 2. According to the prosecution, certain lands situated in Village Nayakbandha, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, originally bearing Khasra Nos. 459, 460 and 461, were acquired in the year 1959–60 by the competent authority for the construction and expansion of the Nayakbandha reservoir and compensation was duly paid to the then bhumiswamis; however, due to non-correction of revenue records in favour of the Water Resources Department, the said lands continued to be reflected in the names of private persons and are presently recorded as Khasra Nos. 1588, 1589 and 1592. During the implementation of the Bharatmala Project for construction and widening of the Raipur – Visakhapatnam National Highway, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956, and notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued in respect of these khasra numbers. Prior to passing of the award, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, Abhanpur, by order dated 14.05.2020, directed verification of records, pursuant to which the applicant Dinesh Patel, then posted as Halka Patwari, along with the Revenue Inspector, allegedly submitted a report that did not disclose the earlier acquisition of the lands for the reservoir. Relying on the prevailing revenue entries and the said verification report, the lands were treated as privately owned and an award dated 18.03.2021 was passed under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, leading to disbursement of compensation to private persons. Subsequently, upon complaints by public representatives, an enquiry was conducted and the Additional 3 Collector, Raipur, in his report dated 30.01.2023, alleged that double compensation had been paid for lands already acquired earlier. On the basis of this enquiry report and subsequent correspondence, the present FIR in Crime No. 30/2025 was registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, alleging that the applicant and other accused, in connivance with public servants and private individuals, caused wrongful loss to the State exchequer by facilitating payment of compensation for the second time in respect of the same lands. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. The applicant, a field-level revenue employee posted as Halka Patwari, has at all material times discharged only routine official duties under the supervision and directions of his superior officers, and the investigation does not disclose any independent or direct act on his part suggesting fabrication of records or wrongful gain to himself. It is an admitted position that no recovery of any compensation amount, cash, or incriminating material has been made from the applicant, nor is there any allegation of pecuniary benefit having accrued to him. The applicant received his first independent posting only on 01.03.2019, long after the original acquisition of land in 1959–60 and the subsequent settlement operations and revenue entries had already taken place, and thus the bulk of the factual matrix substantially predates his tenure. He merely prepared records on the basis of existing official entries and lawful instructions, and the ultimate decisions relating to notification, award and disbursement of compensation were taken by the competent authorities, beyond the 4 domain of a Halka Patwari. There is no specific overt act alleged to show that the applicant entered into any conspiracy or prior understanding with private persons, nor is there any material indicating meetings, communications or benefit-sharing with alleged beneficiaries. The essential ingredients of offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not prima facie made out, as there is no material to show that the applicant authored, signed, interpolated or knowingly used any forged document, and likewise the offence under Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted in the absence of any recovery, money trail, or allegation of undue advantage. The core dispute relates to the validity of the land acquisition award and entitlement to compensation, which is essentially a matter of quasi-judicial determination under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, and even the enquiry report did not recommend registration of an FIR, thereby significantly diluting any allegation of criminal intent at the field level. Several similarly placed co-accused have already been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court, and the applicant stands on an equal, if not better, footing and is entitled to parity. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, has deep roots in society, and undertakes to cooperate fully with the investigation and trial, to appear on all dates, and to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely (i) Vijay Kumar Jain, (ii) Harmeet Singh Khanuja, (iii) Kedar Tiwari and (iv) Uma Tiwari, have already been granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC Nos. 4823/2025, 4994/2025, 5419/2025 and 5280/2025 vide order dated 17.07.2025, and that (v) Smt. Basanti Dhritlahre has also been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 10451/2025 by order dated 02.01.2026, apart from other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, this Court finds that the present applicant stands on an equal footing in terms of the alleged role and benefit and is therefore entitled to parity. Further, taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Dinesh Patel, involved in Crime No. 30/2025, registered at Police Station – ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B of the IPC and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- 6 (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 sufficient cause, the trial court may 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 her, 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav