1 2026:CGHC:27252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5844 of 2026 Shikhar Narayan Mourya S/o Shri Sushil Mourya Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Ramayan Chowk, Beside Public School Chantidih, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 718/2026 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant, namely Madhukar Rao, lodged a report on 18.05.2026 alleging that he is KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 305/22 admeasuring 0.02 acre along with a residential house situated at Village Chantidih, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. It is alleged that during his absence, accused Deepak Mudaliyar unauthorisedly occupied his house and, by preparing a forged power of attorney in the complainant's name through impersonation and using a fake voter identity card, fraudulently executed a registered sale deed in favour of his wife, co-accused Muskan Mudaliyar, in respect of the said property. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of co-accused/witness Shikhar Narayan Maurya was recorded, wherein it was alleged that at the instance of co-accused Deepak Mudaliyar, he along with another witness knowingly identified an impersonator as Madhukar Rao and signed the forged power of attorney as witnesses despite being aware that the executant was not the real owner. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the present applicant was arrested on 13.06.2026 for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the dispute essentially arises out of a property transaction and is predominantly civil in nature, which is evident from the fact that the complainant had earlier lodged a complaint on the very same allegations, whereupon the police, after enquiry, treated the matter as non-cognizable and prepared a report under Section 174 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that the complainant had also instituted a civil suit in respect of the disputed 3 property, which was subsequently withdrawn, and thereafter the present FIR came to be lodged on substantially identical allegations. It is further submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is confined only to being a witness to the alleged power of attorney and he is not a witness to the registered sale deed by which the property was transferred. It is further submitted that co- accused Muskan Mudaliyar, in whose favour the property is alleged to have been transferred and who is the main beneficiary of the transaction, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned trial Court on 08.06.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, no further custodial interrogation is required, he is in judicial custody since 13.06.2026 and is also suffering from spinal disc-related ailments. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and pertain to preparation of forged documents for usurping valuable immovable property. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected indicating that the present applicant knowingly identified an impersonator as the complainant and signed the forged power of attorney as a witness, thereby facilitating the execution of forged documents on the basis of which the disputed property was fraudulently transferred. It is further submitted that the active participation of the applicant in the execution of the forged power of 4 attorney is duly supported by the material collected during investigation and, therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the application for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. 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 of allegations and the fact that the role attributed to the present applicant is confined to being a witness to the alleged power of attorney and he is not a witness to the registered sale deed, the co-accused Muskan Mudaliyar, in whose favour the disputed property was transferred, has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant has no criminal antecedents however, charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, the applicant is in judicial custody since 13.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant –Shikhar Narayan Mourya, involved in Crime No. 718/2026 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 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:- 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 6 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. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal