1 CGHC010304422026 2026:CGHC:34785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1283 of 2026 Jivardhan Yadav S/o Shri Bhima Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jabga, Thana And Tahsil - Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 07.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/2026, registered at Police Station – Kapu, District Raigarh (C.G.) for alleged SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.07 16:40:32 +0530 2 commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dharamjaigarh, the Tahsildar, Kapu lodged a written complaint alleging large-scale manipulation of revenue records in respect of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 409 and 438/1 situated at Village Dumarnara. During enquiry, it was found that Khasra No. 409 originally stood recorded in the name of members of the Pando Scheduled Tribe, whereas Khasra No. 438 was Government land. It is alleged that without any order of a competent authority, the revenue records were illegally manipulated and the name of one Sukhan, son of Bajrang Rawat, was fraudulently entered, despite there being no such person residing in the concerned village. Thereafter, on 21.02.2024, the said lands were sold through registered sale deeds in favour of Santosh Devi Gupta and the sale deeds were authenticated by the then Tahsildar. The enquiry further revealed that the subdivision of Khasra No.438 and subsequent mutations were effected without any lawful authority, the attesting witnesses were unaware of the true nature of the transaction and alleged the sale deeds to be fraudulent and that a forged Aadhaar Card 3 was allegedly used to impersonate the purported vendor. On the basis of these allegations of forgery, fabrication of revenue records and fraudulent transfer of Scheduled Tribe and Government land, the present crime came to be registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 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 Applicant had merely signed the registered sale deed as an attesting witness and had no role either as the seller or the purchaser of the disputed land, nor did he derive any benefit from the transaction. It is further contended that the Applicant became a witness to the sale deed in good faith at the request of Padman Kumar Patel and Digamber Patel and was unaware of any alleged fraud or forgery. It is further submitted that the Applicant neither knew the purchaser nor the purported vendor personally and has not prepared, forged or used any forged document, including the alleged forged Aadhaar Card or manipulated revenue records. It is further submitted that upon learning about the alleged fraudulent transaction, the Applicant himself addressed a written complaint to the Collector, Raigarh on 15.06.2026, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted and 4 the present FIR came to be registered. It is also submitted that no custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required, as no recovery is to be effected from him, he has no criminal antecedents and as the trial is likely to take quite some time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Rakesh Sai has already been rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2026 passed in MCRCA No.1229/2026 and therefore, the present Applicant is also not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the present Applicant as an attesting witness to the disputed sale deed, the prima facie material indicating his participation in the execution of the impugned transaction, the rejection of the anticipatory bail application of similarly placed co-accused Rakesh Sai on merits by this Court vide order 5 dated 03.08.2026 passed in MCRCA No.1229/2026 and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant –Jivardhan Yadav, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.108/2026, registered at Police Station – Kapu, District Raigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC, is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya