1 CGHC010373052026 2026:CGHC:42704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8996 of 2026 Khilendra Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Lt. Goverdhan Nirmalkar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Chandkhuri, Near Bus Stand, Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pulgaon, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 01/10/2026 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. 521/2026 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS). 2. As per the case of the prosecution, land bearing survey No. 1227/1 area 0.0420 hectares situated village Chandrakhuri, District Durg, was recorded in the name of the applicant herein in the revenue record. The applicant executed a consent letter in favour of his son whereby he was granted right to claim his share in the said property. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.10.01 17:32:19 +0530 2 Subsequently, an agreement to sell was entered into between the co- accused Guptendra Kumar and Raja Chouhan on 04.04.2025. Raja Chouhan made payment of entire consideration of Rs.25,51,000/- to co-accused (son of the applicant) and thereafter registered sale-deed was executed in his favour. It is alleged that when purchaser Raja Chouhan approached the Revenue Authorities for mutation, the present applicant and co-accused raised objection and got mutated the property in their name on 12.05.2026. On such complaint, the police registered the aforesaid offences, as stated above, against the present applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the sale-deed in favour of the complainant was executed by his son (co-accused Guptendra Kumar); the said sale-deed executed in his favour is still in tact; the order was passed by the Revenue Authority whereby the name of the applicant has been entered in revenue record; it can be adjudicated by filing appeal before the superior authority (Revenue); sale consideration was received by the co-accused on 17.12.24, 26.12.24, 27.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 and the dispute appears to be of a civil nature. He would further contend that charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 05.06.2026; he has no criminal antecedents and further, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some considerable time. Therefore, he would pray that the bail application may be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. He would submit that the present applicant and co-accused (applicant’s 3 son) cheated the complainant by forging documents. He would submit that the property was recorded in the name of the present applicant alone whereas co-accused sold the said land to the complainant and grabbed the sale consideration. It is also argued that the present applicant approached the Revenue Authority and got his name mutated in revenue records against the land bearing Survey No.1227/1, and therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the facts that the sale-deed in favour of the complainant was executed by his son (co-accused Guptendra Kumar); the said sale-deed executed in his favour is still in tact; the order was passed by the Revenue Authority whereby the name of the applicant has been entered in revenue record; it can be adjudicated by filing appeal before the superior authority (Revenue); sale consideration was received by the co-accused on 17.12.24, 26.12.24, 27.12.2024 and 31.12.2024 and the dispute appears to be of a civil nature; he has no criminal antecedents; charge-sheet has already been filed; he is in jail since 05.06.2026 and further conclusion of trial may take some considerable time, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed. 7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani