1 2026:CGHC:21988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4357 of 2026 Sandeep Banjare S/o Krishna Kumar Banjare Aged About 26 Years R/o Baudhwapara Ward No. 1 Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.68/2026, registered at Police Station - Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by the complainant, Amit Bhaskar, before Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, stating that in the month of January, one Surya Sahu, resident of Village Khamhariya, Patwari Halka No. 24, RNM Jaroundha, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, approached him for the sale of land bearing Khasra Nos. 514/1, 515, 511, 512/4, 514/3, 516/2, 517/2, 524, and 525, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.12 12:06:08 +0530 2 admeasuring a total area of 1.40 acres. It was alleged that Surya Sahu showed the B-1, P-2, Khasra documents, and the original Rin Pustika, and also provided photocopies thereof. He further showed the location (mouja) of the land and assured the complainant that he would arrange a meeting with the landowner for finalization of the transaction. The complainant was informed that the landowner was an elderly woman who was unable to travel, and that a registered Power of Attorney had been executed in favour of a representative, on the basis of which the transaction would be carried out. Believing the representations made, the complainant agreed to proceed with the deal. Thereafter, the present applicant/accused, Sudhir Saini, along with one Sandeep Banjare, who claimed himself to be the registered Power of Attorney holder, approached the complainant and provided a copy of the alleged Power of Attorney for the purpose of sale of the said land. They further proceeded to execute an agreement in respect of the land. It was represented by them that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 514/1 and 515, admeasuring approximately 0.136 hectares and 1.823 hectares respectively (approximately 5 acres), was available for sale. They further stated that the remaining land had already been agreed to be sold to them and that they themselves were duly authorized to act as Power of Attorney holders. Upon inquiry by the complainant, negotiations were conducted with Surya Sahu, and the land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre. Consequently, an agreement was executed between Sudhir Saini and Sandeep Banjare on 12.02.2025, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs was paid by the complainant. However, prior to execution of the sale deed, the complainant made further inquiries regarding the land and came to know from local persons that the land was not available for sale and that the photograph of the alleged landowner did not match the actual 3 owner. Subsequently, the real landowner confirmed that the land was not for sale and even affixed a board to that effect. Thereafter, when the complainant contacted Surya Sahu regarding the agreement, it was revealed that Sudhir Saini and Sandeep Banjare had misled him. 3. It is alleged that, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the applicant/accused persons prepared a fake and forged Power of Attorney by affixing the photograph of another woman in place of the actual landowner, executed a false agreement, and dishonestly obtained an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs from the complainant. On the basis of the written complaint, the concerned police station registered the offence and initiated investigation for offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), and 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that the present applicant is not the beneficiary of the alleged transaction. A sum of Rs. 5,79,000/- was received by the present applicant through bank transfer, however, the said amount was subsequently handed over to Bhupendra Bhaskar by way of a self-cheque, which was duly encashed by him. Further, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to co-accused Surya Sahu. The present applicant received only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from co-accused Surya Sahu for obtaining the Power of Attorney in his name. Thus, the entire alleged amount was received and retained by Surya Sahu, and the present applicant derived no wrongful gain from the alleged transaction. Learned counsel further submits that two cases have been registered against the applicant in respect of the same transaction, and that in Crime No. 68/2026, the co-accused, namely, Sudhir Saini, has 4 already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3600/2026. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents which is pending and the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026, hence he prays for grant of regular bail on the ground of parity. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations and the material available on record and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and further, two cases have been registered against the applicant in respect of the same transaction, and that in Crime No. 68/2026, the co-accused, namely, Sudhir Saini, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3600/2026, further the applicant has one previous criminal antecedents and the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 8. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Sandeep Banjare involved in Crime No.68/2026, registered at Police Station - Civil Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 61(2) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti