1 CGHC010339752026 2026:CGHC:42202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8174 of 2026 Anand Soni S/o Basant Kumar Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 47/986 Brahman Para, Near Satyanarayan Mandir, Ward No. 58, Police Station Ajad Chowk, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Jamul, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.09 .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. 394/2018 registered at Police Station: Jamul, District: Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by Manish Soni against the present applicant, alleging that the present applicant sold House No. 2/2501, situated at Housing Board, Bhilai, admeasuring 80.41 square metres, to a third party by way of a registered sale deed. It is further alleged that the said house was allotted to the applicant's mother, Pratibha 2 Soni, and that the present applicant forged the power of attorney and, by virtue of the said document, alienated the property for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- as ransom. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the validity of the power of attorney cannot be examined in a criminal case. He submits that the complainant ought to have filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deed. He would further contend that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that two reports were lodged by his cousin against the present applicant in relation to a land dispute, which are still pending consideration. He submits that these are the only two criminal antecedents against the applicant and that both were lodged by his cousin on account of the land dispute. He would, therefore, pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He would submit that the present applicant cheated his cousin by forging the power of attorney and thereafter sold the house allotted to the applicant's mother. He would submit that there is a prima facie case against the applicant and, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the applicant has been in custody since 17.05.2026, and without further commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the 3 event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (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. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Saurabh