1 2026:CGHC:6599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9994 of 2025 Mehendi Husain S/o Late Manasrim Husain Ansari Aged About 46 Years R/o Nawagarh, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This is the 4rst bail application 4led 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. 223/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that land bearing Khasra No. 397/112, admeasuring 1.104 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 hectares, had been purchased in the name of the applicant’s wife, namely Firdos Akhtar Ansari, from Santu and her name was duly recorded in the revenue records. It is further alleged that the said co-accused Firdos Akhtar Ansari subsequently sold the aforesaid land to the complainant on 30.12.2022 after receiving total sale consideration of Rs.29,00,000/-. However, after execution of the sale deed, the complainant’s name could not be mutated in the revenue records as the land had been transferred without obtaining prior permission of the Collector as required under Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It is also alleged that the land had originally been granted on lease under the Singh Deo Yojna and, despite having knowledge that prior permission of the Collector was mandatory, the applicant executed the sale deed and thereby committed fraud. On the basis of these allegations, the applicant was arrested and, thereafter, the present bail application has been 4led. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any o;ence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further contended that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about three years from the execution of the sale deed dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure A/2), which itself creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story. He submits that the land in question had been lawfully purchased by the applicant on 01.03.2021 from Setu Ram after due report of the Patwari as required prior to execution of the sale deed, and the complainant was fully aware of the said fact 3 (Annexure A/3). It is also pointed out that similarly placed co- accused, namely Firdos Akhtar Husain, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 615/2025 vide order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure A/4), and on the ground of parity the present applicant is also entitled to bail. He further submits that the applicant has himself 4led a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the complainant and her husband alleging that, under pressure, they had obtained a cheque of Rs. 30 lakh from him, and as a counterblast the present false F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents which are of the year 2023, are pending. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been 4led, he is in jail since 07.11.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the present bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further submits that there are speci4c and serious allegations against the present applicant of having knowingly executed the sale deed in respect of leasehold land granted under the Singh Deo Yojna without obtaining prior permission of the Collector, thereby committing fraud and causing wrongful loss to the complainant after receiving substantial sale consideration. It is contended that the o;ence is grave in nature, the investigation has revealed the active involvement of the applicant in the transaction. He further submits that the present 4 applicant has 02 criminal antecedents which is pending, shows that he is a habitual o;ender, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant was committed fraud and causing wrongful loss to the complainant, but in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been 4led before the competent Court, he has 02 criminal antecedents which are of the year 2023, and he is in jail since 07.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Mehendi Husain, involved in Crime No. 223/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 4le an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 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. 5 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 4xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without suDcient 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 4xed 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 4xed 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 suDcient 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. 8. ODce is directed to provide a certi4ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan