1 CGHC010339402026 2026:CGHC:39076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1439 of 2026 1 - Kailash Jethwani S/o Late Pesumal Jethwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.7, Patrapara, Dharamjaigarh, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kapu, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03.09.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.131/2026 registered at Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written complaint was made by the Tehsildar, Kapu namely Unmesh Patel, on 11.08.2026, inter-alia on the allegation that the government land of Gram Panchayat Raimer has been divided in parts and fake leases have been prepared in the name of outsiders and fake registry has been done by brokers, whose Kh. numbers are 479/2 (area 2.023), 467/36 (area 0.874), 467/25 (area 0.695), 467/23 (area 310/10/(2011), 0.548), 310/10/ ख (area 0.974) 310/10/2 (area 2.758). The area of government land Kh. numbers 467/23 467/25, 467/36 are 0.248, 0.965, 0.874 hectare respectively. The land was registered in the name of a private individual by the then-patwari, Rakesh Sath. Subsequently, the land was transferred to another person illegally on the basis of forged documents. In this transfer, Halka Patwari Rakesh Sath, as well as power of attorney holder Kailash Kumar Jetwani, the attesting witness of the purchase and sale, and other individuals are also seriously involved allegedly. On the basis of the said complaint dated 11.08.2026, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Rakesh Sai, Kailash Jethani (Applicant herein), Ujit Ram, Augustus Khalkho and Lal Bahadur Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code at Police station Kapu. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for applicant would submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question. It is further submitted that applicant is involved 3 in the business of brokerage of land from past many years and due to the involvement of the applicant in the brokerage of land he met with the co-accused namely Ujit Ram and he was having the land but he was unable to sell his agricultural land, hence two registered Power of Attorneys were executed in favor of the applicant herein to sell the aforesaid land. On the basis of the said registered Power of Attorney dated 17.10.2022 executed the registered sale deed on 20.10.2022 in favor Madhu Sudan Agarwal and on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 21.10.2022, purchaser Madhu Sudan Agarwal has preferred three different applications for the mutation of his name in the revenue records and thereafter name of the purchaser Madhu Sudan Agarwal was recorded in revenue records and even the ‘Rin Pustika’ was also corrected and fresh Rin-Pustika was issued in favor of the Madhu Sudan Agarwal. It is further submitted that the applicant had become the registered Power of Attorney considering the name of the original land owner Ujit Ram to be registered in the revenue records and having the ‘Rin Pustika’ with him. Since the name registered in the revenue records is itself genuine, the signature of the then Tehsildar is present in all the above-mentioned revenue documents and hence the registration of the sale deed was executed considering hìm as the genuine certifier. If any such name was entered on the basis of wrong entry, then the applicant was not aware of it and the original owner was aware of the same. The applicant has not 4 prepared any fraudulent or forged documents. Therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submit that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the applicant, who is broker, has sold the property in the capacity of power of attorney holder to original owner Ujit Ram to a third person as such he has committed forgery and the case has also been registered against the co-accused Ujit Ram and the concerned Patwari and departmental enquiry has also been initiated against him and the investigation is already going on, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and further considering that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents get the government land mutated in the name of Ujit Ram and the applicant has allegedly sold the land to a third person in the capacity of power of attorney holder to owner Ujit Ram, the another accused, as such prima facie it cannot be said that the applicant being in the capacity of power of attorney holder was not aware of the forged documents owned by the co-accused Ujit Ram and the departmental enquiry has also been initiated against the concerned Patwari who did all 5 these proceedings, thus prima facie the applicant appears to be involved in the crime in question, therefore, without commenting anything on merits, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Nirala