1 2026:CGHC:11472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2156 of 2026 Ganesh Prasad Tamboli S/o Chandulal Tamboli Aged About 51 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Sakreli, P.S. Baradwar, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Baradwar, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.03.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 201/2025 registered at Police Station- Nandini Nagar, District Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 61(2) of the I.T. Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.08.2025 the complainant Radheshyam Verma, Tahsildar of Ahiwara, lodged a report at Nandini Police Station alleging that certain unknown persons illegally accessed and manipulated the Bhuiya Software of Tehsil Ahiwara by using the ID of a Patwari. It is alleged that the accused persons prepared forged revenue records, namely a “Rin Pustika,” in respect of the concerned land, altered the area and other revenue entries, and on the basis of such forged documents applied for and obtained a loan from State Bank of India in the name of Dinu Ram Yadav. It is further alleged that after the loan was sanctioned the fraud came to light, whereafter the matter was reported to the police, and during the course of investigation the present applicant was also found to be involved in the alleged offence and was subsequently arrested, hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. She further submits that the applicant wishes to assert that the allegations made against him are completely concocted and false. She further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Amit Kumar Mourya, Ashok Kumar Uraon, Komal Chand Sahu, Kaushal Kumar Fekar, Omprakash Nishad, Nandkishore Sahu, Girdhar Banjare and Devanand Sahu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.01.2026, 05.02.2026, 28.01.2026, 19.02.2025, 19.02.2025, 06.11.2025, 09.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 3 9709/2025, 1305/2026, 919/2026, 1641/2026, 1641/2026, 7828/2025, 184/2026 and 10394/2025 respectively. She also submits that though the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, but after the lodging of the present FIR, a subsequent FIR of the same nature was lodged, and he is in jail since 30.10.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 30.10.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co- accused persons, namely, Amit Kumar Mourya, Ashok Kumar Uraon, Komal Chand Sahu, Kaushal Kumar Fekar, Omprakash Nishad, Nandkishore Sahu, Girdhar Banjare and Devanand Sahu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.01.2026, 05.02.2026, 28.01.2026, 19.02.2025, 19.02.2025, 06.11.2025, 09.01.2026 and 21.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 4 9709/2025, 1305/2026, 919/2026, 1641/2026, 1641/2026, 7828/2025, 184/2026 and 10394/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent in which he has already been granted bail, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Ganesh Prasad Tamboli, involved in Crime No. 201/2025 registered at Police Station- Nandini Nagar, District Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) and 111(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 61(2) of the I.T. Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 5 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. (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan