1 CGHC010304662026 2026:CGHC:35642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.7423 of 2026 Firanta Das Patre Son Of Late Sukulu Patre, Aged About 80 Years Resident Of Madkudeep, Tehsil And Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident Of Village Kirari Bhatapara, District Balodabazar C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sargaon Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Shubham Singh along with Mr. Abhishek Kesharwani, Advocates. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. SS Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.13 11:14:51 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.41/2026 registered at Police Station – Sargaon, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.2026, complainants Sunil Chhabra and Krishna Nathani, partners of DRS Firm, lodged a written complaint alleging that an agreement was executed between the complainants, their partners and the present Applicant/accused on 22.04.2022, whereby all land-related transactions were entrusted by the firm to co-accused Chhagan Lal Verma. Pursuant thereto, on 08.05.2023, land bearing Khasra Nos. 245/2, 257 and 750/2, admeasuring 0.1820, 0.1380 and 0.030 hectares respectively, situated at Village Madkudip, was purchased from its recorded owner, the present Applicant/accused, through a registered sale deed executed in favour of the partners of DRS Firm through their power of attorney holder. Thereafter, an application for mutation was submitted before the Tehsildar, Sargaon and the complainants and their partners remained in possession of the said land. It is alleged that the present Applicant, in connivance with co-accused Chhagan Lal Verma, deliberately got an objection filed by Naveen 3 Kumar Andres before the Tehsildar, claiming that his father John Andres had earlier purchased the same land from the Applicant through a sale deed dated 15.07.1975, but the land could not be mutated in John's name during his lifetime. Despite having knowledge of the earlier transaction, the Applicant allegedly, with an intention to obtain further monetary gain, again sold the same land to DRS Firm. Subsequently, on the basis of the objection raised by Naveen Kumar, the mutation application of the complainants was rejected and the name of Naveen Kumar was entered in the revenue records. It is further alleged that after coming to know of the said objection, the Applicant and other accused persons, in order to safeguard themselves, conspired to sell the same land for the third time in favour of another person, thereby causing wrongful loss of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants and their partners. Accordingly, a First Information Report was registered against the Applicant for the offences as mentioned above. Hence this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the Applicant has not suppressed any material fact and as per the prosecution itself, the earlier sale deed was executed in the year 1975, but no mutation was 4 ever effected in favour of the father of the objector Naveen Kumar Andres, while the Applicant remained in possession of the disputed land till its sale on 08.05.2023. It is further submitted that the objector has neither instituted any civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession nor sought any such relief against the Applicant and that, in view of the civil nature of the dispute, the allegations are essentially required to be adjudicated by the competent civil court. He further submits that the co-accused Chhagan Lal Verma, whose case is stated to be similar to that of the present Applicant, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.3804/2026. It is also submitted that the complainant had purchased the disputed land only after verification of the revenue records and demarcation, the Applicant is aged about 80 years, the charge-sheet has already been filed, he is in custody since 07.06.2026 and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution witnesses, therefore, as the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, the Applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Contrarily, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the disputed land was sold for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- despite the alleged prior 5 transaction in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the objector. It is further submitted that although the present Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the case of the co-accused Chhagan Lal Verma stands on a different footing and therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to claim parity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is aged about 80 years, the period of custody since 07.06.2026, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the fact that the Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and co- accused Chhagan Lal Verma, against whom similar allegations have been levelled in respect of the same transaction, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No.3804/2026, coupled with the fact 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. 6 7. Let Applicant- Firanta Das Patre involved in Crime No. 41/2026 registered at Police Station – Sargaon, Mungeli, 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as 7 abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/hyer 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