1 CGHC010358972026 2026:CGHC:42386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8578 of 2026 Jitendra Sahu S/o Shri Shriram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Pokhra, P.S. Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Aman Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No77/2026, registered at Police Station Magarlod, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Sachin Bangani, lodged a written report alleging that he is running a cloth shop in the name and style of “Maniklal Askaran” at Village Gobra Nawapara. It is alleged that accused Thakur Ram Sahu, a resident of Village Sounga, sold the land belonging to deceased Vishnu Prasad Sahu, admeasuring 4½ acres, by recording his own name in forged documents, including the Rin Pustika, Aadhaar Card and bank NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2026.10.01 10:49:49 +0530 2 account, and got an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- transferred into the bank account of Kurra, Gobra Nawapara. 3. It is further alleged by the complainant that when he intended to purchase the said land, the present applicant informed him that he was a relative of Vishnu Prasad Sahu, a resident of Sounga, Tehsil Magarlod, and that Vishnu Prasad Sahu intended to sell his land admeasuring 4½ acres. Thereafter, the complainant, along with his friend, visited the house of Vishnu Prasad Sahu, where discussions took place regarding the proposed sale. The relevant documents showing the land admeasuring 1.70 hectares were also shown to him. At that time, a paddy crop was standing on the land. When Vishnu Prasad Sahu called the Halka Patwari, the Patwari was also present there. After completion of the formalities, an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was agreed to be paid. On 10/07/2024, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid in cash, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- through RTGS to the bank account. Thereafter, on 19/08/2024, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash to Vishnu Prasad Sahu. It was also agreed that the sale deed would be executed within two months. However, when the complainant subsequently tried to contact him, there was no response. It was thereafter discovered that the owner of the land, namely, Vishnu Prasad Sahu, had already died on 04/03/2018. Upon making inquiries, no satisfactory response was received. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the name of the applicant does not find mention in the FIR and that he had merely introduced the complainant to Vishnu Prasad Sahu. He submits that 3 the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and, therefore, prays that the applicant may be released on bail, as he is in custody since 21/08/2026. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out, as it was the applicant who introduced the complainant to Vishnu Prasad Sahu. It is further submitted that there appears to be direct involvement of the applicant and that, in connivance with co-accused Thakur Ram Sahu, the applicant subjected the complainant to fraud, resulting in a loss of Rs.40,00,000/-. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application may kindly be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned State counsel and have perused the case diary. 7. Considering the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the prima facie view that the involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage. The manner in which the complainant appears to have been subjected to fraud and an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was allegedly obtained by the applicant in connivance with the co-accused also weighs against the applicant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Kamde