1 CGHC010289102026 2026:CGHC:33192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6977 of 2026 1 - Rajiv Kumar Shrirange S/o Guwal Shri Range Aged About 45 Years R/o Reewagahan, Post Khertha, Tahsil Marri Bangala Deori, P.S. Deori, District- Balod, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Deori, District- Balod, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. This is the first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Deori, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 with Section 34, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Mahendra Kumar Sahu, lodged an FIR alleging that the present applicant, in connivance with co-accused Poshan Das Sahu, got the land bearing Khasra No. 937, admeasuring 1.09 hectares, situated at Village Mujgahan, District Balod (C.G.), mutated in the name of Poshan Das Sahu on the basis of a forged Will dated 15.03.2003. It is alleged that the applicant, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, used the forged Will to secure the illegal mutation of the aforesaid land. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the present crime against the applicant and the co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences and took up the investigation. 3. 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 dispute is essentially of a civil nature relating to the validity of a Will and has been given a colour of criminality. Learned counsel submits that the applicant, who is working as a Patwari, has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 25.06.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the beneficiary/co-accused, Poshan Das Sahu, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1098/2026. It is also contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further judicial custody. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. It is contended that considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the dispute appears to arise out of a transaction having civil overtones relating to the validity of a Will, the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in judicial custody since 25.06.2026, is serving as a Patwari, the parity of the case with the co-accused Poshan Das Sahu, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant – Rajiv Kumar Shrirange involved in Crime No. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Deori, District Balod (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B 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 file an undertaking to the 4 effect that he 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 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 5 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Ruchi