1 CGHC010314062026 2026:CGHC:37647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1384 of 2026 1 - Birendra Dubey S/o Late Radheshyam Dubey Aged About 72 Years (Worngly Mention As 70 Years) R/o Village Koylari, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Baiyathan, Distt. Surajpur C.G. 2 - Kamlesh Dubey S/o Birendra Dubey Aged About 48 Years (Wrongly Mention As 45 Years), R/o Village Koylari, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Baiyathan, Distt. Surajpur C.G. ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan), Distt. Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel. Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. 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. 185/2026 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.22 11:27:06 +0530 2 registered at Police Station – Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan), Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, who is the step- son of the complainant Shailkumari, along with other co-accused persons, allegedly tampered with the revenue map and got the disputed land partitioned. It is further alleged that the applicant submitted an application for mutation before the Tehsil Office, Bhaiyathan, on the basis of a purportedly forged death certificate of the complainant Shailkumari, falsely declaring her to be deceased. The said application was registered as R.P.C. No. 202501261000001/AS on 28.11.2024, and the mutation order was allegedly passed within one month, on 27.12.2024. It is further alleged that the applicant, in connivance with the then Tehsildar, Bhaiyathan, and Patwari Angelina Bhagat, caused an advertisement inviting claims and objections to be published in village Koylari instead of village Karkoti, where the disputed land is situated, thereby facilitating the mutation proceedings. As per the prosecution, the death certificate of Shailkumari mentioned her date of death as 09.02.1967, whereas the applicant relied upon documents showing the disputed land to have been recorded subsequently, thereby creating a false claim over the property. It is further alleged that, after obtaining the mutation order, the applicant, along with co-accused Shivam and Sanjay, in connivance with the then Tehsildar, Bhaiyathan, namely Sanjay Rathore, immediately caused the disputed land to be sold on 05.02.2025 in favour of Sharda Rathore, wife of the said Tehsildar, and thereby derived wrongful gain. On the basis of the aforesaid 3 allegations, the offence under the relevant provisions of law has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. The applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the allegations regarding tampering with the revenue map, submission of a forged death certificate and obtaining mutation of the disputed land are false and baseless, and the applicant has not committed any forgery, cheating or manipulation of the revenue records. It is further submitted that the mutation proceedings were conducted before the competent revenue authority in accordance with law and the applicant had no role in any alleged connivance with the then Tehsildar or Patwari. The applicant further submits that the subsequent sale transaction was not entered into by him with any dishonest or fraudulent intention and the allegations regarding any wrongful gain are wholly unfounded. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not placed any cogent or reliable material establishing the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences, and his implication is based merely on suspicion and allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, as well as learned counsel for the objector, opposed the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available on record, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Birendra Dubey & Kamlesh Dubey, 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 vaibhav