1 CGHC010272832026 2026:CGHC:32948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1162 of 2026 Ash Ram Banjare S/o Budhram Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o Gali No.11, Temri, Mana Camp, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nandini Nagar District Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. NK Chhatterjee, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 30.07.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.201/2025, registered at SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.31 16:10:12 +0530 2 Police Station – Nandini Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) and 111(2) of BNS and also under Sections 66C and 61(2) of IT Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused Dinuram Yadav and others, manipulated the online revenue records by creating fictitious Khasra numbers, altering the original land area and forging revenue documents through unauthorized use of the Patwari's user ID. It is alleged that on the strength of such fabricated revenue records, including a forged Kisan Kitab and Patwari verification report bearing forged signatures, co- accused Dinuram Yadav obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.45,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, out of which Rs.36,00,000/- was withdrawn, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer. During investigation, the forged entries were detected upon verification of the manual revenue records and the Bhuiyan Portal, the fabricated Khasra entries were subsequently deleted by the competent Revenue Authority and documentary evidence relating to the loan transaction and withdrawal of the amount was collected. On the basis of the said complaint, offences mentioned above, 3 were registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that co-accused Shiyankhik Verma has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1483/2025 and co-accused Yogeshwar Shaym @ Yogesh Banjare has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.02.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 310/2026. It is contended that the case of the present Applicant stands on the same footing as that of the aforesaid co-accused and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the present Applicant is specifically named in the FIR, whereas the co-accused who have been granted anticipatory bail were not named therein, therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefit of parity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the case diary material, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the specific allegation against the present Applicant, who is named in the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the Applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have been granted anticipatory bail, as they were not named in the FIR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Ash Ram Banjare, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.201/2025, registered at Police Station – Nandini Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) and 111(2) of BNS and also under Sections 66C and 61(2) of IT Act, is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya