1 CGHC010258432026 2026:CGHC:28460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1053 of 2026 Kishore Dayalani S/o Lt Dularam Dayalani Aged About 66 Years R/o Smart Road Near Sanjivini Hospital Police Station Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 812/2026 registered at Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC). 2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Shankar Lal Dayalani submitted a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, wherein he stated that he is a resident of Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur 2 (Chhattisgarh), and has been engaged in the business of property investment within Bilaspur city for the last approximately 20 years. He received information that a house constructed upon the disputed land was being offered for sale. Accordingly, he expressed his willingness to purchase the said house along with the land and, for that purpose, examined the revenue records relating to the previous transactions concerning the said land. Upon such examination, he came to know that on 16.01.2009, the disputed land was purchased by the applicant through a registered sale deed from the land owners/vendors, namely, Smt. Lois Hiradhar, wife of Late Abhay Kumar, and Cheta Hiradhar, daughter of Late Abhay Hiradhar, both residents of Panna Nagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur. After purchasing the land, the applicant got his name mutated in the revenue records. The sale deed and other relevant documents pertaining to the said transaction have been enclosed. All the annexed documents record that Khasra No. 54/25 has a total area of 0.012 hectare (0.03 acre). This was corroborated by the Khasra P-2 records for the years 2002–03 to 2005–06. Likewise, the B-1 revenue record issued by the Revenue Officer on 09.01.2009 also records the area of the said land as 0.012 hectare. When the complainant examined the Khasra P-2 records for the years 2006–07 to 2010–11 relating to the said land, he found that the area mentioned in the original Khasra Form P-2 had been altered by overwriting and forgery. He further alleged that the then Halka Patwari, Dhirendra Singh, had also played a role in the said act, and that the area had been increased from 03 decimals to 06 decimals and from 0.012 hectare to 0.024 hectare by making fraudulent entries. Thereafter, the applicant divided the fraudulently enhanced area of 06 decimals into two portions of 03 decimals each. On 14.03.2011, acting as vendor, the applicant executed a registered sale deed in favour 3 of purchaser Anil Motwani by using the forged documents and sold 03 decimals out of the total area of 06 decimals of the disputed land. On the same date, the applicant, acting as vendor, also executed another registered sale deed in favour of purchaser Smt. Reshma Motwani, by using the forged documents, and sold the remaining 03 decimals out of the total area of 06 decimals of the disputed land. The documents relating to the sale transactions establish that the applicant, after purchasing only 03 decimals of land, in collusion with the Revenue Officer, got the area in the revenue records fraudulently increased to 06 decimals and thereafter illegally sold the land measuring 03 decimals each to the respective purchasers. The sale transactions clearly indicated that the forged documents were fully utilized by the applicant and that he himself received the money obtained through the alleged fraudulent transactions. 3. It was further alleged that the applicant, with the intention of committing fraud, conspired with the Revenue Officer to forge the Khasra Form, which is an important part of the revenue records and constitutes a valuable security, and thereafter used the forged document to purchase and sell the disputed land, thereby dishonestly obtaining property. On this basis, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC / Sections 318, 336, 338, 340, 61 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were stated to be made out against the applicant and the concerned Revenue Officer, which are cognizable and serious offences. It was further stated in the complaint that the offence of forging revenue records for the purpose of cheating numerous persons was increasing at an alarming rate. Therefore, immediate action against persons having criminal intent, such as the applicant, was stated to be necessary so that those committing such organized offences may be appropriately 4 punished and the rule of law may be upheld. Acting upon the said complaint, the Police of Police Station, Civil Line, Bilaspur, registered the offence in question. 4. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire prosecution case arises out of entries made in revenue records which never remained in possession of the applicant and it was solely kept and maintained by the Revenue Officers. Under what circumstances Revenue Officers have made the entries can be explained by such officer and not by the applicant. Except bald allegation there is nothing, placed by complainant, on record which may indicate regarding any role of conspiracy/manipulation played by applicant under gloves in hand with revenue officials. The dispute is essentially civil/revenue in nature and has been given a criminal colour by the complainant. Further, there appears no locus of the complainant because he is neither victim nor any way related to the alleged offence even then he has lodged the report with an ulterior motive to harass and extort the applicant. Neither the persons from whom the applicant had purchased the said lands nor the persons to whom applicant had sold the said lands vide sale deeds as mentioned above, have any grievance in regard to the area of land purchased/sold The complainant has no relation with the land. Neither he is beneficiary nor any wrongful loss is going to be caused to him but only because of family disputes, he is unnecessarily dragging the applicant. 5. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that whatsoever entries therein the revenue records are done by the Patwari and only the Patwari concerned can explain that under which circumstances, which entry got placed in the record. The allegation of manipulation by the applicant has 5 no basis on record. Otherwise also it is out of imagination that any revenue officer will enter forced or manipulated entries in record and take risk of his own carrier just to serve some person. Entries by inadvertent mistake cannot be ruled out. Only by observing some entry, the forgery or manipulation cannot be inferred unless it is got proved by strong reliable evidence. The applicant has not sold land having double the area from the area which he purchased sold area and area purchased are similar and thus no inference of manipulation or forgery with conspiracy with revenue officers can be inferred against the applicant. The bonafide on part of the applicant is revealed from the application made by the applicant to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur for online correction of the record wherein applicant has specifically mentioned the area of Kh. No. 54/4, as 1308 sq.ft. and area of Kh. No. 54/25 as 1295 sq.ft. and accordingly, order was passed on 17.08.2023. Although the complainant has mentioned about order dated 03.10.2024 of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Thakhatpur, District Bilaspur to malign the conduct and character of the applicant, but has deliberately suppressed that the said order dated 03.10.2024, was set aside by the Additional Collector vide order dated 29.05.2026. All these conduct of the complainant go to show that sole intention of the complainant is to harass the applicant. The applicant has sold the land only upto the area which he has infact purchased and without getting its area increased, may be ostensibly has not sold land more than the land within his ownership and within rightful claim. The Revenue Entry (P-II) filed by complainant was of Kh. No. 54/4 from year 2001-02 till 2010-11, by which complainant has levelled allegation of forgery in regard to Kh. No. 54/25 does not support said allegation of the complainant because in fact the entries in these documents relates not to Kh No. 54/25 but Kh. 6 No. 54/4. Apart from it, the said entry starts corresponding to year 2006- 07 to which complainant has alleged as purchase year of land by the applicant while above mentioned purchase sale deeds reveal that the purchase years of the lands are 2009 and 2010. As narrated by complainant, it is not the case that the applicant has sold to Anil Motwani and Reshma Motwani both, land bearing Kh. No. 54/25. In fact he has sold concerned area of land of Kh. No. 54/4 and Kh. No. 54/25 to Anil and Reshma. It appears that inadvertently in one sale deed, the Kh. No. 54/25 has been mentioned leaving the mentioning of another sold Khasra Number 54/4 by typographical mistake. The applicant will make effort to get the mistake rectified. When Kh. No. 54/25 was purchased upto the extent of land area mentioned in sale deed and the revenue records as submitted by the complainant, do not show any manipulation in area of Kh.No. 54/25 then there was not possibility for applicant to sell more area of land which he has purchased of Kh. No. 54/25. If contention of the complainant is taken into consideration, only Kh. No. 54/25 is sold with more land then purchased which is not possible because the revenue records submitted by complainant no where show any manipulation of area in regard to Kh. No. 54/25. If contents of both the sale deeds by which the applicant sold the lands to Anil Motwani and Reshma Motwani are taken into consideration then it will bring a status in existence that as if the Kh. No. 54/4 has yet not been sold by the applicant to any of said purchasers. But in fact the applicant had sold the Khasra No. 54/4 along with Kh.No.54/25 also to Anil and Reshma. Although there appears some discrepancy in mentioning/non-mentioning of boundary, area, khasra number in sale deeds but it is inadvertent and can get rectified by adopting due legal process as there are no manipulation or forgery on part of the applicant. 7 6. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that though the applicant is having one criminal antecedent relating to the year 2020 for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC, the same is pending consideration and is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. The present being a civil dispute which has been tried to give a colour of criminal offence, the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that he has one criminal antecedent as aforesaid which is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence, the investigation in the present case has not been completed and there may be chances of tampering with the evidence and as such, this application be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant primarily arise out of alleged manipulation of revenue records and the subsequent execution of registered sale deeds. The prosecution case is essentially founded upon documentary evidence, which is already available with the investigating agency. Whether the alleged interpolation in the revenue records was made in conspiracy with the applicant or otherwise is a matter which would require thorough investigation and can be conclusively determined only during trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is also noticeable that the transactions in question relate to the years 2009 and 2011, whereas the FIR has been registered in the year 2026. At this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate that custodial 8 interrogation of the applicant is indispensable for the purpose of investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding tampering with evidence can be adequately taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions while granting anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of the allegations, the documentary character of the evidence, the stage of investigation and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 10. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Kishore Dayalani on executing a personal bond with one local surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant 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 alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.10 11:46:14 +0530