1 CGHC010260972026 2026:CGHC:29942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6300 of 2026 Laxman Patel S/o Shri Mahesh Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sutee, Tehsil And Thana - Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. For Objector(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Anjani Nayak, intended to purchase agricultural land and was introduced by co-accused Laxman Prasad Patel to accused Nutan Patel as the owner of certain lands situated at Village Chhote Devgaon. Believing the representations made by the accused persons, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.12.2024 and paid a total sum of Rs.25,14,322/- towards advance sale consideration and for redemption of the land from bank mortgage. Subsequently, it came to light that a substantial portion of the land had already been sold by Nutan Patel through a registered sale deed dated 05.10.2020, in which co-accused Laxman Prasad Patel had signed as a witness. Alleging that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly induced her to part with the money by executing an agreement in respect of land already sold to a third party, the complainant lodged the report. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the applicant has not played any active role in the alleged offence, he was merely an attesting witness to the sale deed executed in the year 2020 and neither received any part of the alleged consideration amount nor acted as an agent in 3 the transaction. He also submits that the applicant had no knowledge of the subsequent agreement to sell executed in the year 2024 between the complainant and the co-accused. Merely because the complainant allegedly paid the advance amount in the presence of the applicant, he cannot be held liable, as he was unaware of the earlier or subsequent transactions and has been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. He lastly submits that the dispute is essentially between the complainant and co-accused Nutan Patel. The complainant was already acquainted with both the co-accused and the applicant, as the applicant had earlier sold some land to the complainant's husband. Owing to such previous acquaintance, the applicant has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused despite having no involvement in the alleged offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.04.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the applicant is alleged to have facilitated the fraudulent land transaction by introducing the complainant to the co-accused and, despite being a witness to the earlier registered sale deed whereby a part of the land had already been sold to a third party, concealed the said fact from the complainant, further in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons, the applicant induced the complainant to part 4 with Rs.25,14,322/-, thereby committed the alleged offences and is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 12.04.2026, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have facilitated the fraudulent land transaction by introducing the complainant to the co-accused and concealing the fact that a part of the land had already been sold to a third party, thereby inducing the complainant to part with Rs.25,14,322/- in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons, but considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant-Laxman Patel, involved in Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 5 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 him in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil