1 CGHC010291662026 2026:CGHC:38670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6879 of 2026 Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Late Dhaniram Agrawal Aged About 63 Years (Wrongly Typed In The Impugned Order As 52 Years), R/o Village Premnagar, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Incharge Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.595/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3),338, 340(2), 61(2) & 238 of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.01 16:07:04 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Tehsildar, Ambikapur, acting upon the directions of the Collector, Surguja, conducted an inquiry into the authenticity of four orders purportedly passed by the Board of Revenue in four separate matters, including two matters in which the present applicant was a party. During the course of inquiry, it was found that the original orders passed by the Board of Revenue were materially different from the orders produced/relied upon, and upon comparison, it was revealed that the original orders had been tampered with and fabricated. The said acts were found to constitute offences under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, the Tehsildar, Ambikapur submitted a written communication to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur Kotwali, requesting registration of an FIR against the present applicant and two other accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Ambikapur Kotwali registered the offence against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation was thereafter taken up. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no material to show that he himself forged, fabricated or manipulated any revenue order or document. It is submitted that the applicant, aged about 63 years, had been in possession of the land in question for more than eight years and is running a hardware shop in the name and style of Laxmi Traders, and that one Mohammad Dastgir Ansari, claiming himself to be an Advocate and an expert in revenue matters, had assured the applicant that he would conduct the revenue 3 proceedings and secure an order in his favour, for which the applicant paid him about Rs.3 lakhs. Acting upon such representation and believing him to be an Advocate, the applicant relied upon him and subsequently received the purported order of the Board of Revenue in his favour. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge that the said document was forged or fabricated and, in fact, after coming to know about the alleged forgery, he himself approached the police authorities. Learned counsel further submits that Mohammad Dastgir Ansari is the main accused and has been implicated in several similar cases involving preparation and use of forged revenue documents, and that the applicant himself is a victim of the said deception. It is also submitted that there is no material collected by the prosecution showing that the applicant participated in preparation, forgery or manipulation of the alleged documents or knowingly used any forged document. Learned counsel further submits that the co- accused persons have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Hon'ble Court, including Mohammad Iqbal in MCRCA No. 451/2025 and Meena Gupta in the connected/identical matter, and another co- accused has also been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1566/2025; therefore, the applicant also deserves to be considered on the principle of parity, particularly when the allegations against him are not graver than those against the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that although the applicant's earlier applications for anticipatory bail were rejected and the SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed, the present application is being considered in the changed circumstance of the applicant having surrendered and remained in custody since 4 20.07.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the other accused persons are already facing trial and substantial progress has been made, with about half of the prosecution witnesses having been examined, though the trial is still likely to take considerable time. The applicant is a 63-year-old person and a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or interfering with the course of justice. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the applicant's advanced age, absence of material indicating his direct involvement in the alleged forgery, his claim of having himself been deceived by the principal accused, grant of bail to similarly placed co- accused, substantial progress in the trial and the applicant's voluntary surrender, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application of the applicant. 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, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Hon'ble Court, including Mohammad Iqbal in MCRCA No. 451/2025 and Meena Gupta in the connected/identical matter, and another co-accused having also been 5 granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1566/2025, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he has been in judicial custody since 20.07.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Ghanshyam Agrawal, involved in Crime No.595/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3),338, 340(2), 61(2) & 238 of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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. (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 6 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav