1 CGHC010314122026 2026:CGHC:37645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1386 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Rathor S/o Shri Kashi Ram Rathor Aged About 43 Years By Caste Rathor, Correct Address R/o E/13, Konark Residency, M.G. Road, Ambikapur Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja C.G. (In The Cause Title Wrongly Mention) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan), Distt. Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : 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 is apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 185/2026 registered at Police Station – Jhilmili (Bhaiyathan), Distt. Surajpur VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.22 11:27:05 +0530 2 (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. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 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 applicant is a law-abiding citizen having no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present case as an act of retaliation and due to personal vendetta. It is submitted that, on the same allegations, the complainant had earlier lodged a complaint before the police against co-accused Birendra Dubey, wherein the complainant admitted in her cross-examination that she had received the money, and the said co-accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, against which the complainant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 165/2018, which was also dismissed on 27.01.2022. It is further submitted that the police had initially submitted a report under Section 174 of the BNSS, thereafter the complainant preferred a complaint case, which is pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, and significantly, the applicant was not made a party therein. It is also submitted that co-accused Birendra Dubey has filed Civil Suit No. 74-A/25 seeking declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in respect of the disputed property, and neither the applicant nor his wife has purchased the disputed property, as alleged by the complainant. The applicant apprehends arrest on the basis of unsubstantiated and fabricated allegations, and there is no credible material connecting him with the alleged offences. The applicant is a government servant and his arrest would cause serious prejudice to 4 his service career and would result in undue harassment. It is further submitted that the applicant has deep-rooted social and family ties, is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, owns landed property there, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, and his custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of criminal antecedents, the lack of credible material against him and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the applicant prays that he may kindly be granted the benefit of anticipatory 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 applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 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 applicant has 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 applicant – Sanjay Kumar Rathor, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the 5 satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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 applicant 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav