1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 54 of 2026 Mukavan Das Kashyap S/o Ganesh Kashyap, Aged About 40 Years R/o Villlage Bade Urla Thana Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. (as per charge sheet). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29/07/24 the complainant namely Roshni Pandey has lodged a written report against the applicant stating that the applicant has sold land to the complainant GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.01.08 16:35:54 +0530 2 through Power of Attorney bearing Khasra No.392/1 area 1350 square feet through registered sale deed on 17/01/19. That thereafter the complainant has mutated the land in her name in revenue record on 23/10/2020 but the actual owner of the land has filed appeal before the SDO Raipur to cancel the name of complainant from revenue record. Thereafter SDO has set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar therefore the complainant has lodged FIR bearing Crime No.601/2024 U/S 420 of I.P.C. against the applicant and after investigation police has added the offence U/S 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that date of incident is 18/06/18 to 23/10/20 but the complainant has lodged FIR on 29/07/24 after 3 years 3 months of the incident and she has not explained the delay for lodging the FIR. He would submit that the actual owner of the said land has given Power of Attorney to applicant and as per direction of owner of land he has sold the land to the complainant. He would submit that the owner of said land has received full amount given by the complainant therefore owner of said land has not objected before the Tahsildar when complainant has filed mutation application and Power of Attorney also submit before Registrar Raipur and as per direction of owner of said land the Registrar has given permission to the applicant to sold the land to complainant. He would submit that the case is of civil in nature but un-necessarily the complainant has lodged false report after long time. He would submit that the charge sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since 11/09/2025 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and she would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case before the competent court and the applicant has three criminal antecedents of the year 2011, 2019 and 2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, further the fact that case is of civil in nature, period of detention of the applicant since 11/09/2025, charge sheet has been filed, applicant has three criminal antecedents out of which one is old and stale and also considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the Applicant- Mukavan Das Kashyap, involved in Crime No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, 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 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. 4 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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, 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 abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri