1 2026:CGHC:7118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1417 of 2026 Punaram Sahu S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khorpa, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 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. 451/2025 registered at Police Station - Abhanpur District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Keshlal Baya, lodged a report at Police Station Abhanpur alleging that land bearing VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.10 11:47:13 +0530 2 Khasra Nos. 10/2, 12, 14, 28, 30, 56, 7/1B, 24, 25, 26, 38, 4, 43, 5 and 7/2, admeasuring a total area of 2.600 hectares, situated at Village Aamdi, was recorded in the name of his grandson, Manish Kumar Baya. It is alleged that the applicant and his son Vikram Sahu kept Manish Kumar Baya at their house for work, and during that period, co-accused Punaram Sahu obtained his personal documents, such as the Rin Pustika, PAN card, passbook and Aadhaar card, on the pretext of providing a mobile phone. Thereafter, on the basis of these documents, co-accused Punaram Sahu allegedly got a sale deed executed from Manish Kumar Baya in favour of his niece, Gayatri Sahu, for a total consideration of Rs. 63,49,000/-, which was transferred to the bank account of Manish Kumar Baya through four cheques. It is further alleged that the subject land comprised valuable double-crop irrigated land and was purchased at a price much below the prevailing market value, causing an estimated loss of Rs. 2–3 crores. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant and co-accused Punaram Sahu. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that the subject lands were purchased in the name of Gayatri Sahu after payment of the full consideration amount of Rs. 63,49,000/- through cheques bearing Nos. 456606, 456607, 456608 and 456609 issued in favour of the landowner, Manish Kumar Baya, and the sale deed was duly executed on 12.06.2024 in the office of the Deputy Registrar in the presence of witnesses. It is further submitted that the said cheques were subsequently reported missing by Manish Kumar Baya, who informed the Superintendent of Police, 3 Raipur, and also issued a legal notice to Gayatri Sahu for issuance of fresh cheques. Thereafter, fresh cheques bearing Nos. 456612, 456613, 456614 and 456615, totaling Rs. 63,49,000/-, were issued and deposited in the bank account of Manish Kumar Baya, and an amended sale deed was executed on 04.10.2024 before the Collector of Stamps, in which the present applicant signed as a witness. It is further submitted that Manish Kumar Baya is mentally fit and is independently contesting proceedings relating to the subject lands before the revenue authorities. Earlier, a complaint dated 30.07.2024 lodged at Police Station Abhanpur was duly enquired into and, finding no offence made out against the applicant, his father Punaram Sahu and Gayatri Sahu, the proceedings were closed on 13.08.2024. It is also submitted that, on the basis of the sale deed, the subject lands have been duly mutated in the name of Gayatri Sahu in the revenue records and Kisan Kitab No. 3946890 and B-1 have been issued in her name. The applicant has not committed any cheating or fraud, and the dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature with no criminality involved. It is further submitted that on similar allegations, the son of the applicant, Vikram Sahu, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 22 of 2026 vide order dated 08.01.2026. The applicant is in judicial custody since 17.12.2025; hence, it is prayed that he be enlarged on bail. 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, and the applicant has one criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 4 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 further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, and that on similar allegations the son of the applicant, Vikram Sahu, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 22 of 2026 vide order dated 08.01.2026, and the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 07.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Punaram Sahu, involved in Crime No. 451/2025 registered at Police Station - Abhanpur District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 5 shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office 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 Vaibhav