1 2026:CGHC:19420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3801 of 2026 Ahmad Ali S/o Ahmad Hussain Aged About 47 Years R/o Mayapur, Kadari Manjil, Lalbahadur Shastri Ward, Kuwa Gali Mayapur, Thana And Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer - Ambikapur (City Kotawali), District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/04/2026 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. 161/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Ambikapur (City Kotawali), District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that late Jamila Khatoon, daughter of Yaar Mohammad, was the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1668/14, measuring 10 dismil. In the year 2019, during her lifetime, she allegedly divided the said land into two parts. However, in 2021, the sons of the complainant’s elder aunt, namely Ahmad Ali and Mujamil, are alleged to have executed a sale deed of the said property without informing the complainant’s father, uncle, and younger aunt. Upon inspection of the sale deed documents, the complainant found discrepancies in the Rin Pustika (loan record book) number. The Rin Pustika attached to the sale deed bore number P-1948564, whereas the original Rin Pustika number of the land was L-22055, which is also reflected in the official revenue records. It is alleged that the accused persons, with the intention to fraudulently sell the property without obtaining necessary permission from the Collector, fabricated a false Rin Pustika bearing number P- 1948564 and used it to execute the sale deed. On the basis of these allegations, a complaint was filed, and consequently, an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered as Crime No. 161/2026 against the present applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3 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. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 in MCRCA No.581 of 2026, copy of the order is annexed as Annexure A/7. He also submits that the FIR of the present case has been lodged after five years from the date of the alleged incident, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case, as such, the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant in connivance with co-accused persons, fraudulently sold the disputed land by preparing and using a forged Rin Pustika with a false number, without obtaining necessary permission from the Collector, thereby cheating the rightful stakeholders and committing alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 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, 4 nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 10.03.2026, charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case and the fact that the though the applicant in connivance with co-accused persons, fraudulently sold the disputed land by preparing and using a forged Rin Pustika with a false number, without obtaining necessary permission from the Collector, but considering the fact that FIR of the present case has been lodged after five years from the date of the alleged incident and co- accused, namely, Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 in MCRCA No.581 of 2026, further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, as such, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Ahmad Ali, involved in Crime No. 161/2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur (City Kotawali), District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 5 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 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil