1 CGHC010261042026 2026:CGHC:29668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1092 of 2026 Leeladhar Ram Yadav S/o Guruwaru Ram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Raikera, P.S. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sumit Singh, Deputy AG. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.164/2026 registered at Police Station – Bagicha, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (2), 336, 338, 339, 61 (2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.15 19:37:52 +0530 2 ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that some land dispute was going on between Bhagwano Ram and Bansidhar. The said Bhagwano has filed an appeal with averments that in the year 2010 he has purchased 1.06 Acres of land from Bansidhar bearing Khasra No.49/4 and after the aforesaid registered sale deed, the Tahsildar has directed to mutate the name of Bhagwano vide order dated 15.05.2012, against which Bansidhar has filed an appeal before the SDO but the same has been dismissed on 26.06.2012. Thereafter Bansidhar has filed a civil Suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No.05/A/2015 and vide order dated 15.09.2017 the civil suit has been dismissed. Thereafter an appeal has been preferred by Bansidhar and subsequently on the basis of the compromise between the parties, the said appeal has been withdrawn, but the name of Bhagwano has not been shown in the revenue records. Bansidhar has taken advantage of the aforesaid fact and vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.2022 sold the land to the applicant by Bansidhar from Khasra No.49/8 area 0.14 Acre. Accordingly the name of the applicant has been duly recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter the remaining land of Bansidhar was sold to Parmanand. Then, Bhagwano, who has purchased the land prior to the applicant and parmanand, has filed an appeal for mutation and the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 04.06.2026 allowed the appeal filed by Bhagwano and directed the Tahsildar to lodge a report against the present 3 applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that from the revenue record, it is clear that on the date of the sale deed by Bansidhar in favour of the present applicant, he was having 0.0570 hectare land and out of the aforesaid land, the petitioner had only purchased 0.12 acre of the land by way of registered sale deed. It cannot be presumed that the applicant was having any knowledge about the earlier sale deed. Even otherwise, at the time of earlier sale deed, total 0.684 hectare land was situated in Khasra No.49/4 and out of the aforesaid 0.684 hectare of the land, only 0.429 hectare (1.06 acre) was purchased by Bhagwano. Therefore, in any case, in the revenue record, on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the applicant, the land has been very much shown in the revenue record. Therefore, prima facie offence against the applicant is not made out. He further submits that the applicant is the bonafide purchaser and the sub-divisional officer having no jurisdiction or right to pass such an order for registration of offence against the applicant in a mutation matter because Bhagwano has not come forward to lodge any report against the applicant. If any order of mutation is required to be set aside, the same cannot be a ground for lodging the FIR against the applicant. Therefore the applicant be released on bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the dispute involved in the case appears to be of civil in nature, as such, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Leeladhar Ram Yadav, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should 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) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he should 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 sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which 5 shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Barve