1 2026:CGHC:323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10486 of 2025 Jeevan Prakash Ekka S/o Shri Nirmal Ekka Aged About 34 Years Occupation Government Servant Patwari, R/o Village Silsila, Police Out Post Raghunathpur, P.S. Lundra, Post OfÏce, Lamgaon, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 9201744126. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Dhourpur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station : Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 19.10.2025, the complainant, namely Muneshwar Ram Paikara, lodged a report alleging that the applicant, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.06 11:06:33 +0530 2 who is a Patwari posted at P.C. No. 6, Village Karouli, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.), had taken an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 26.12.2024 and Rs. 5,12,950/- on 04.01.2025, totaling Rs. 14,12,950/-, for the purpose of execution of a sale deed on behalf of Hirmaniya Gond, the owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 203, admeasuring 0.124 hectares, situated at Village Karouli. It is further alleged that when the complainant party asked the applicant to execute the sale deed, he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, the complainant party met Hirmaniya Gond, who stated that she was not selling her property. Consequently, the FIR was lodged against the present applicant for the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act which may amount to any of the offences mentioned above. Apart from the above, the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufÏcient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. In order to purchase the property of Hirmaniya Gond, bearing Khasra No. 203, admeasuring 0.124 hectares, the complainant, namely Muneshwar Ram Paikara, along with Anuk Das and Suryadev Tigga, prepared a plan and, on 01.05.2025, by giving threats and exerting pressure upon the applicant, obtained his signature and afÏxed seal on blank papers, and thereafter prepared documents showing the alleged transaction of money. He also submits that on 17.07.2025, the applicant was called by the concerned police for recording his statement on the complaint made by the complainant. It was then that the applicant came to know that the complainant party was making false allegations against him. Accordingly, the applicant moved an application before the Superintendent of Police 3 on 21.07.2025, but no action was taken. Subsequently, on 19.10.2025, an FIR was registered against the applicant alleging that, on behalf of Hirmaniya Gond, the applicant had taken a sum of Rs. 14,12,950/- from the complainant party for selling her property in their favour. He further submits that the applicant filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, against the complainant party, clearly mentioning the true facts of the case and explaining how the complainant party misused the documents by inserting a false transaction amount against the applicant. He submits that the complainant party sought undue favour from the applicant to enable them to purchase the property of Hirmaniya Gond, but the owner had already refused to sell her property to the complainant party, which fact has been specifically mentioned in the application filed before the Superintendent of Police, Surguja. Therefore, the complainant party is nursing a grudge against the applicant and has falsely implicated him in a fabricated case. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in jail since 21.10.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that in the present case, the charge- sheet has not submitted before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court which is taken on record, 4 the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 21.10.2025, trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Jeevan Prakash Ekka, involved in Crime No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station : Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 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. 5 (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 Abhishek