1 2026:CGHC:27242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5871 of 2026 1. Bandhan Oraon S/o Lodhi Oraon Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Sikilma, Police Chowki Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2. Vishwanath Nagesh S/o Jai Mangal Nagesh Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sayarrai, Police Chowki Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge, Raghunathpur, Police Station- Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 28/2026, registered at Police Chowki – Raghunathpur, Police Station – Lundra, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.03 16:16:22 +0530 2 District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Krishna Kumar Nageshiya, submitted a written complaint on 05.02.2026 before Police Outpost Raghunathpur stating that his father, Bandhan Nageshiya, a resident of Village Lamgaon, had died on 29.12.2019, and that the agricultural land situated at Village Sayarrai continued to stand in his father's name. It was alleged that accused Bandhan Oraon, in conspiracy with the other accused persons, falsely impersonated the deceased Bandhan Nageshiya and executed a fraudulent sale deed of the said land in favour of co-accused Akash Deep Rambo for a sale consideration of Rs. 29,92,000/-. It was further alleged that co-accused Vishwanath and Syed Imtiyaz Ali falsely identified Bandhan Oraon as the real owner of the land before the registering authority, thereby facilitating the execution and registration of the forged sale deed. The prosecution further alleges that all the accused persons acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to illegally transfer the land belonging to a deceased person and shared the sale consideration among themselves. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the present applicant came to be arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that co-accused Aakash Deep Raimbo has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2402/2026. It is further submitted that another co-accused has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 746/2026. The case of the present applicants is stated to be identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. It is 3 further submitted that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and they have been in judicial custody since 05.02.2026. Considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. However, he could not dispute the fact that other co-accused persons, who are similarly situated, have already been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, the fact that the co-accused Aakash Deep Raimbo has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2402/2026 and another co-accused has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 746/2026, the case of the present applicants is stated to be identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons, also considering the fact that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and they have been in judicial custody since 05.02.2026, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 4 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant Nos. 1 and 2 - Bandhan Oraon and Vishwanath Nagesh, involved in Crime No. 28/2026, registered at Police Station – Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 5 8. 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