1 CGHC010164022026 2026:CGHC:31563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.CrC No.3804 of 2026 Chagan Lal Verma, S/o Late Chaitram Verma, Aged About 52 Years R/o H.No.122, Apna Ghar Colony Chuiha Reyatwari, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sargaon District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. In terms of the order dated 08.07.2026, learned Counsel for the Applicant is permitted to correct the parentage of the SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.23 18:20:48 +0530 2 Applicant. Necessary correction be carried out in Court today itself. 2. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.41/2026 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.03.2026, the Complainants Sunil Chhabra and Krishna Nathani, partners of D.R.S. Firm, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Sargaon alleging that pursuant to an agreement dated 22.04.2022, all land-related work had been entrusted to the present Applicant. Thereafter, on 08.05.2023, the Applicant got the land bearing Khasra Nos. 245/2, 257 and 750/2, admeasuring 0.3380 hectares in total, registered in favour of the Complainant Firm through its attorney, after purchasing the same from its recorded owner, Firanta Das Patre. It is alleged that after the purchase, the Applicant, in conspiracy with the said land owner, initiated mutation proceedings and subsequently got a false objection filed through one Naveen Kumar Andres on the basis of an earlier sale deed allegedly 3 executed in favour of Naveen Kumar's father, John Andres, in the year 1975, despite being aware of the earlier transaction. Owing to the said objection, the mutation application was rejected and the name of Naveen Kumar was entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, to shield themselves from liability, the Applicant and the co-accused allegedly conspired to have the same land sold for a third time in favour of another person, thereby dishonestly causing a loss of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainants and their partners. On the basis of these allegations, the present offences were registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant was merely an attesting witness to the registered sale deed and had neither any role in the sale transaction nor any knowledge of the earlier sale allegedly executed by co-accused Firanta Das in favour of John Andrews. It is further submitted that the Applicant was neither the beneficiary of the transaction nor had any intention to cheat the Complainants and, therefore, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against him. It is argued that the main accused namely Firanta Das, who allegedly executed multiple sale 4 transactions and supported the mutation proceedings, has not been arrested, whereas the Applicant has been selectively arrested. It is further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature arising out of a property transaction. Learned Counsel also contends that the Applicant's arrest was made in violation of the provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS, without issuance of the mandatory notice, despite the alleged offences being punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. It is further submitted that the Applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, one of his daughters is suffering from chronic mental illness and he is also facing medical issues in jail. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant is in jail since 31.03.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be granted regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the present Applicant, the fact that the Applicant is stated to have been merely an attesting witness to the registered sale deed and is not alleged to be the direct beneficiary of the transaction, the 5 period of custody of the Applicant since 31.03.2026 and considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant-Chagan Lal Verma involved in Crime No.41/2026 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 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/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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. (ii) The applicant/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel. In case of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their presence, proclamation under Section 6 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s 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/s 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/them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya