1 2026:CGHC:51 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1991 of 2025 Benimadhav Gupta S/o Shivcharan Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Kamalpur, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Police Station Wrongly Mention In Rejection Order) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 02.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Second Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 35/2024, registered at Police Station – Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been granted in the offences punishable under Section 420 read with RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 section 34 of IPC by this Court, but during the investigation the police is added the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC along with Section 420 read with section 34 of IPC. 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant and the co-accused are siblings. The co-accused, Smt. Sangita Devi, had initially filed an application claiming her share in the ancestral property, which was recorded in the names of her brothers, and an order was subsequently passed in her favour. Thereafter, upon receipt of certain consideration, she again filed an application for deletion of her name from the revenue records, which was allowed. Subsequently, Smt. Sangita Devi once again filed an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records, and the present applicant, being a subsequent purchaser, purchased the share of Smt. Sangita Devi. After her name was duly mutated in the revenue records, Smt. Sangita Devi sold her share in favour of the applicant for due consideration. Thereafter, the complainant, namely Anil Kumar Sahu, son of late Radheshyam Sahu, lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The applicant had earlier moved an application for anticipatory bail before this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 740/2024, which was allowed vide order dated 11.07.2024. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were added along with the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for which anticipatory bail had already been granted. Due to 3 the addition of the aforesaid offences, the applicant moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court, which came to be rejected, hence the present second anticipatory bail application before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He has no role whatsoever in the mutation of the name of co-accused Smt. Sangita Devi in the joint family property, as being a daughter of late Radheshyam Sahu, she is legally entitled to her share in the ancestral property. Since her name was not earlier recorded, she herself moved an application for mutation along with other co- parceners, which was duly allowed by the competent revenue authority. After her name was mutated in the revenue records, she sold her lawful share to the applicant for valid consideration, and therefore, the applicant is merely a bona fide purchaser and has no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged mutation proceedings. The allegations, if any, pertain to the concerned Patwari regarding negligence or fraud in discharge of ofÏcial duties. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, including the present applicant in his earlier anticipatory bail application, as well as other co-accused, have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court. The complainant and other siblings cannot deny the lawful share of Smt. Sangita Devi, especially in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognizing the rights of even married daughters in ancestral property. Therefore, 4 he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, it appears that the applicant was earlier granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 740/2024 vide order dated 11.07.2024 in respect of the offences initially registered, and the present application has been filed only on account of addition of new offences during the course of investigation. Similarly situated co-accused persons have also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation and there is no material on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence, therefore, I am inclined to grant second anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Benimadhav Gupta, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 5 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) the applicant 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 Rahul Dewangan