1 CGHC010293472026 2026:CGHC:33251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1236 of 2026 1 - Praveen Kumar Toppo S/o Late Dharamdas Toppo Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Godhanpur P.O. Plice Station Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. 2 - John Toppo S/o Late Dharamdas Toppo Aged About 60 Years R/o Q No. M I G -1, 162, Maharana Pratap Nagar Police Station City Kotwali District Korba C.G. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shiv Sewak, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Vikas Agrawal, present in person, along with Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. Mr. Vikas Agrawal, present in person in this case, along with Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. 2. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.146/2026 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.31 17:11:57 +0530 2 registered at Police Station – Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Vikas Agrawal, lodged a complaint on 10.07.2026 at Police Station Pathalgaon, stating that he is a co-owner of land bearing Khasra No. 132/2/3/2, admeasuring 0.405 hectares, situated at Village Ludeg, Tahsil Pathalgaon. It is alleged that the adjoining lands bearing Khasra Nos. 132/2/A/1, admeasuring 0.332 hectares, and 132/2/B, admeasuring 0.429 hectares, were originally recorded in the name of Dharamdas Toppo, son of Manjhi Toppo, and were subsequently sold to Dharamdas, son of Shani Bolo, through a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1984. Thereafter, pursuant to Mutation Order No. 991 dated 13.12.1984, the said land was recorded in the name of the purchaser, Dharamdas Tigga. It is alleged that the applicants/accused persons, taking advantage of the common name “Dharamdas”, falsely represented themselves to be the legal heirs of Dharamdas Tigga and, by relying upon the death certificate of their father, Dharamdas Toppo, got their names recorded in the revenue records in respect of the said land. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No. 146/2026 has been registered at Police Station Pathalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature relating to title and mutation of the disputed land. It is submitted that the applicants are the real brothers and legal heirs of Late Dharamdas Toppo and have been in 3 peaceful possession of the property for a long period, whereas the complainant has no dispute with them regarding possession or any alleged encroachment. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants had already approached the revenue authorities regarding the disputed entries and, after due inquiry, the Collector directed the Tahsildar to examine the matter, pursuant to which corrections were made in the revenue records. It is further submitted that the learned SDM, vide order dated 26.05.2026, recognized the applicants as lawful heirs and entitled persons in respect of the disputed khasra numbers and rejected the appeal preferred by the alleged legal heirs of Late Dharamdas Tigga. Thus, the revenue proceedings prima facie support the applicants' claim, and the present FIR has been lodged only to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute and to pressurize the applicants. Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation is not required, the applicants are permanent residents, have deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicants undertake to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court; therefore, they deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the objector/complainant submits that the applicants have deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented themselves as the legal heirs of Dharamdas Tigga, whereas the disputed land had been purchased by Dharamdas Tigga through a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1984 and was duly mutated in his 4 name pursuant to Mutation Order No. 991 dated 13.12.1984. It is submitted that the applicants, taking undue advantage of the similarity in the names of their father and the actual recorded owner, Dharamdas Tigga, dishonestly relied upon the death certificate of Dharamdas Toppo and got their names illegally recorded in the revenue records in respect of the disputed land. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations disclose a prima facie case of cheating and common intention, and the matter involves manipulation of revenue records and fraudulent acts affecting valuable immovable property. It is therefore submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation and that there is a possibility of the applicants influencing witnesses or tampering with relevant documents. On these grounds, learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and prays for rejection of the application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute primarily relates to the title and mutation of the disputed land, and revenue proceedings are already pending in respect thereof. The applicants have placed on record the orders passed by the revenue authorities in their favour. Considering the nature of the dispute, the delay in lodging the FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 5 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Praveen Kumar Toppo & John Toppo, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They shall 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) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) they shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibha