1 2026:CGHC:26898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 926 of 2026 1 - Smt. Firtin Bai W/o Late Kishore Kumar Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No.26 Jagdalla P.S. Champa District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prabha W/o Dilip Aged About 45 Years R/o Salihabhatha Thana Jaijaipur District- Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Champa Distt- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.50/2026 registered at Police Station – Champa District - Janjgir Champa, (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.02 11:19:14 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04/02/2026 the complainant namely Sunil Soni has lodged a written report before Police Station Champa against the co-accused / Ram Singh Gond stating that the great grandfather ofthe co-accused Ram Singh Gond, late Sunhar, died on 14/10/1979, whose death certificate has already been issued, but even after that, the co-accused/Ram Singh with the intention of obtaining illegal benefits has got the death certificate of his great grandfather late Sunhar made by giving wrong information to the concerned department that his great grandfather late Sunhar died on 04/05/1970 and is obtaining unfair benefits. That the great grandfather of the applicant has registered the sale deed in favour of grandfather of the complainant on 19/11/1976 thereafter family member of the complainant has mutated his name in revenue record vide Mutation No.138 dated 09/12/1976. Thereafter police has registered aforesaid offence against the co-accused person Ram Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the principal allegations are against the co- accused, Ram Singh Gond, who is the son of applicant No.1 and the brother of applicant No.2, and that the present applicants have neither prepared nor applied for the issuance of the alleged false death certificate of late Sunhar. It is further submitted that Ram Singh Gond, being a Councillor of Ward No. 26, Municipal Council Champa, has himself been implicated due to political vendetta, and after he was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3346 of 2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026, the present applicants have been falsely implicated under political pressure exerted by the complainant. Learned counsel further 3 submits that the complainant had initially filed a complaint under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the learned JMFC, Champa, wherein the names of the present applicants did not find place, and subsequently withdrew the said complaint. It is also submitted that the application for issuance of the death certificate of late Sunhar was made by Saharta, the grandfather of the co-accused, before the competent authority, on the basis of which the death certificate was issued, and the present applicants had no role whatsoever in the said process. It is contended that no material has been collected during the investigation to show the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour after an inordinate delay. The applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title, have no intention of absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, are ready to cooperate with the investigation, and undertake to abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the similarly situated co-accused namely Amir Ali has already been granted 4 regular bail by this Hon’ble High Court MCRC No. 3346 of 2026 vide order dated 12.05.2026, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Therefore, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Smt. Firtin Bai & Prabha, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they 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 applicants 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 themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav