1 2026:CGHC:27235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1000 of 2026 Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee D/o Late Dayal Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o Nayapara, Motilal Nehru Ward Ward No. 15, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (Chhattisgarh) Present Add. Plot No. 712/a- 1 Ground Floor Balaji Apartment Shalimar Garden Extension - X-1, Sahibaba Ghaziabad U.P. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kotwali Distt- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas A Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.230/2026 registered at Police Station – Kotwali District - Bastar, (C.G.) for the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.03 12:52:47 +0530 2 offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 308(2),318(4) & 61(1) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27/05/2026 complainant Aman Jari lodged an written complaint to P.S. Kotwali that one Prakash Burad, who is in the business of buying and selling of land, contacted him in December 2023 and told him about a property in Nayapara, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) having Seat No. 64, Plot No. 17/31 including Bhukhand K 17/32, area 5000 sq. ft. As the said property is near my residence, I arranged a meeting with the land owners Lilavati Singh, and Jitendra Nihal and Gyanendra Pratap Singh, all residents of Nayapara, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) through Prakash Burad regarding the deal of the said land, where the above mentioned land owners agreed to sell the said property of late Dayal Singh (father). After the death of Dayal Singh, their name was registered in the revenue records as heir and information was given about the existence of another sister, on the basis of which, on 10/06/2023, I made a sale agreement with the land owners by making a deal of the said property at the rate of Rs. 7400/- per square feet and got the revenue records of the said agreed land checked through the Patwari and my lawyer, from which it was found that after the death of Late Dayal Singh, the above land owners had done the process of name transfer on the basis of the above three being heirs and there being no other heir. And on enquiry regarding the said property, it was found that Late Dayal Singh also has a daughter. On getting the above information, when I inquired about the same from the above land owners, the said owners told that Late. Dayal Singh has a daughter who lives outside Chhattisgarh after marriage, and the said sister did not object to the name transfer and sale and gave her 3 consent to appear in person and sign the sale deed as a consenter, on the basis of which, through the registered sale deed dated 11/12/2023, the above land owners and consenters Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee a registered sale deed was executed in the name of me, my wife and other family members and as per the above mentioned sellers, Rs. 3,70,00,000/- (three crore seventy lakh rupees) was given through the bank, and on the basis of the said sale deed, my name and the names of other co-sharers have been registered in the revenue records as owner and occupant and the consenter Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee was informed that Rs. 50,00,000/- (in letters fifty lakh rupees) would be given to her in lieu of her share in the above mentioned sold property. In May 2025, I received a notice from the Fourth Civil Court regarding the said property (258 Pra.K. Chava. K.52A/025). I came to know that a suit had been filed jointly by the above sellers and another sister of the consentor, Ushangini Renuka Singh, and the consentor, Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee, forregistration of their names as heirs to the said property. In this regard, the plaintiffs had also filed a suit in the Nazul Court under case number 237/1-6/2023-24 for inclusion and registration of their names in the suit property. Which was rejected. On getting the above information, I contacted the above sellers and enquired about the same. The sellers Jitendra Nihal and Gyanendra Pratap told me that their elder sister Ushangini Renuka Singh is living in America after marriage, who does not visit here, hence we have nothing to do with her. I had told her that she is also asking for Rs. 50,0000, you give us Rs. 20,000,00 and we will give the rest together. When I refused to give the additional amount, Jitendra Nihal, Gyanendra Pratap and 4 Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee threatened me and said that if you do not give Rs.20,00,000, then they called Ushangini Renuka Singh, who is residing in America, and threatened to file a case in the court. neighbours' Pradeep Deshmukh and Rajkumar Jha were present at that time. After that, the sellers threatened me several times and demanded money from me. When I did not give the additional amount of Rs. 20,00,000 (20 lakh rupees), they has been filed jointly by the above sellers and another sister of the consentor, Ushangini Renuka Singh, and the consentor, Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee, for registration of their names as heirs to the said property. In this way, the above mentioned sellers, Smt. Lilawati Singh (deceased) and Jitendra Nihal and Gyanendra Pratap and Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee, by colluding from the beginning, hatched a criminal conspiracy, hide the names of the heirs of the property and gave a false information and by way they commit fraud of rs.3,70,00,000/- to him on the basis of such written complaint FIR has been registered against present applicant and other ca accused person. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent lady aged about 66 years and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that she has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence and that her only role was to give her consent for execution of the sale deed in respect of the disputed land. It is further submitted that after the death of Late Dayal Singh, the co-accused fraudulently got their names mutated in the revenue records by concealing the fact that the present applicant and her sister were also legal heirs. When the co-accused failed to honour their assurance to pay the applicant her share in the sale consideration, the 5 applicant, along with her sister through power of attorney, approached the Nazool Officer for mutation of her name; however, the application was rejected on the ground that the complainant's name had already been recorded in the revenue records, leaving the applicant to seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court. Thereafter, the applicant instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and possession and for declaring the sale deed dated 11.12.2024 as null and void. It is submitted that the present dispute is essentially civil in nature and that the complainant, only after receiving notice of the civil suit, lodged the present false criminal complaint with a view to harass the applicant and pressurize her. Learned counsel further submits that even if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out against the present applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant had earlier received her legitimate share from the sale of another property belonging to her mother, demonstrating that her claim relates only to her lawful share in the disputed property. The applicant is a permanent resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and being a 66-year-old lady, her custodial interrogation is unwarranted. She is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant 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 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Smt. Hemangini Madhulika Mukherjee, 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) she 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) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) she 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 applicant 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 herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav