1 CGHC010304452026 2026:CGHC:36820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1309 of 2026 Abhishek Singh S/o Ramesh Singh Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Contractor R/o S-2 D-1, Vasundhara Vihar (Godhinpur) P.S. Gandhinagar Tehsil- Ambikapur Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Officer In Charge- Police Station Ambikapur, Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) .... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Anushka Singh Chouhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 18.08.2026 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.661/2024, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.19 17:17:40 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the Applicant/Accused presented the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Revenue Board, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur and submitted an application seeking its implementation, however, upon investigation, the said order was found to be forged, pursuant to which a report was submitted by Kamlesh Kumar Miri, Naib Tehsildar, Ambikapur, to Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, on the basis of which crime has been registered against the Applicant. It is further alleged that as per the memorandum statement of co-accused Randeep Singh, the present Applicant and co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Ansari received a total amount of Rs.86,85,754/- from him in lieu of issuing fake and forged mutation orders in respect of Government land situated at Village Madanpur and Kantiprakashpur and that the Applicant, in connivance with the said co-accused, fraudulently sought to get Government land transferred in his name by scanning and affixing the Commissioner's signature on a forged mutation order and submitting the same before the Revenue Department. Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered against the Applicant for the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections. Hence, this application. 3 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that the allegations made against the Applicant are baseless and co-accused Randeep Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in MCRCA No.567/2025, co-accused Mohammad Farukh has also been granted regular bail in two different crimes vide order dated 19.03.2025 passed in MCRC Nos.1566/2025 and in 1393/2025. It is further submitted that although the FIR was registered on 27.09.2024, the Applicant was implicated after a considerable lapse of time and has merely been served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, directing him to appear for investigation. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the present Applicant, in connivance with co-accused Randeep Singh and Mohd. Dastagir Ansari, was involved in procuring transfer of 7.932 hectares of Government land in favour of co-accused Randeep Singh on the basis of forged revenue documents. It is further submitted that an amount of approximately 4 Rs.86,85,000/- was paid by co-accused Randeep Singh, substantially through PhonePe and partly in cash, in connection with the said transaction, which amount was received by the present Applicant and co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Ansari. He further submits that in Revenue Board Case No.M/07/R/B-121/143-21, originally titled Mahendra Vs. Ramkumar, the names of the parties were manipulated and changed to Randeep Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh by forging the signatures of the President and Member of the Revenue Board and affixing forged tickets, pursuant to which a forged order dated 20.10.2021 was prepared and thereafter used for seeking its implementation in the revenue records. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said forged order dated 20.10.2021, co-accused Randeep Singh filed WPC No.4196/2022 before this Court and obtained an order dated 28.09.2022 in relation thereto. He further submits that the investigation has revealed transfer of the aforesaid amount by co-accused Randeep Singh to the account of Hotel Sai Ma as well as to mobile number 9425582039 linked to the present Applicant through PhonePe and the relevant bank transactions from the ICICI Bank account of co-accused Randeep Singh have been seized during investigation. Upon verification, the Under Secretary, Revenue Board, has 5 submitted a report to the Collector/Tehsildar confirming that the order dated 20.10.2021 containing the altered names of the parties was not genuine. It is further submitted that co- accused Mohammad Farukh was granted bail considering his advanced age, whereas co-accused Randeep Singh was granted bail on the ground that he had merely provided documents to the present Applicant and co-accused Dastagir, and therefore, the circumstances of those accused are distinguishable from that of the present Applicant and no parity can be claimed. He lastly submits that the present Applicant and co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Asnari had jointly prepared the forged order in the name of the Board of Revenue, on the basis of which the FIR was lodged by Kamlesh Kumar Miri, Tahsildar and both of them were beneficiaries of the amount of Rs.86,85,000/- received in connection with the transaction. 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 allegation of the Applicant having, in connivance with co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Ansari and Randeep Singh, participated in 6 preparation and use of the forged order dated 20.10.2021 for facilitating transfer of 7.932 hectares of Government land and the allegation that the Applicant and co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Ansari jointly received approximately Rs.86,85,000/- in connection with the transaction, this Court finds the Applicant to be equally responsible with co-accused Mohd. Dastagir Ansari. The bail granted to co-accused Mohammad Farukh and Randeep Singh is distinguishable on facts and therefore, does not entitle the Applicant to claim parity. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Abhishek Singh, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.661/2024, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS 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