1 CGHC010263132026 2026:CGHC:29663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1101 of 2026 T. Deepak Mudliyar S/o Late Kashinadam Mudliyar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ramayan Chowk, Chantidih, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA. For Objector : Shri Aman Pandey, Advocate appears through VC. 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.718/2026 registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.07.15 19:18:08 +0530 2 District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant, namely Madhukar Rao, lodged a report on 18.05.2026 alleging that he is 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. Thereafter FIR was registered and co-accused Shikhar Narayan was arrested. During the course of investigation, memorandum statement of co-accused Shikhar Narayan Maurya was recorded wherein it was alleged that at the instance of Deepak Mudaliyar (present applicant), Shikhar Narayan along with another witness knowingly identified as Madhukar Rao by way of impersonation and signed the forged power of attorney as witnesses despite being aware that the executant was not the real owner. 3. Learned Senior 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 3 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 property, which was subsequently withdrawn, and thereafter the present FIR came to be lodged on substantially identical allegations. 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 trial Court on 08.06.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the IPC of the year 2022. Therefore, the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for the Objector oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant on submission that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and pertain to preparation of forged documents for usurping valuable immovable property and, therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the application for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the dispute essentially arises out of a property transaction and is predominantly civil in nature, as 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, and that the complainant had also instituted a civil suit in respect of the disputed property, which was subsequently withdrawn, and thereafter the present FIR came to be lodged on substantially identical allegations, as such, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – T. Deepak Mudliyar, 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. 5 (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 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