1 2026:CGHC:18499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1956 of 2026 Ajendra Toppo S/o Shri Jagsay Toppo Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Jamuniya, Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pasta District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaki, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2026, an application for taking on record modified/corrected bail application. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned the application, the same is allowed. 3. 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. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.23 10:48:11 +0530 2 45/2025 registered at Police Station – Pasta District Balrampur- Ramanujganj,(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(2) (3), 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the BNS. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.12.2025, a complainant was made by the Kaveri Mukherjee (Tehsildar) at the Pasta police station Davra chowki to the effect that on account of complaints received by the Sarpanch of Gram panchayat Pakrari, Semrakatha, Bhendari, Karamdiha, Kodaura, Kotdech that the accused Gupta Vijay Gupta allegedly manipulated and tampered land revenue records of the government forest land and private lands. Allegedly during the investigation, it was revealed that the Bhuiyan Portal ID of the Applicant/accused Ajendra Toppo (Patwari halka no.1 and no.2) was used to make fraudulent changes in the revenue records. Allegedly it was found that through deceit and forgery, entries were manipulated using ID of applicant/accused in favor of Virendra Gupta and his family members. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against applicant/accused Ajendra Toppo and Virendra Gupta under section 318(2)(3), 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61 of BNS under Crime No. 45/25 of Pasta Police Station davra chowki, and the case was taken up for investigation. As part of the investigation, the applicant was arrested by the Police on 13th December, 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the crime in question. There is also an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred between 29.10.2025 3 and 29.11.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 12.12.2025, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet does not specifically state that any forged entries were made during the period 2021–22 to 2025–26, rendering the allegations vague and lacking in concrete particulars. Moreover, although it is alleged that forged entries in land revenue records were made for wrongful sale of paddy, no investigation has been conducted to establish any actual sale transaction or wrongful gain arising therefrom. It is also submitted that the alleged digital entries do not bear the digital signature of the applicant, which prima facie negates his direct involvement, and the entries are alleged to have been made by co-accused persons using the applicant’s login credentials without his knowledge or authorization, thus no vicarious liability can be attributed to him. Further, no forensic audit, server log analysis, or technical evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the alleged entries were made by the applicant from his device or under his control, and in the absence of such technical linkage, the allegations remain unsubstantiated. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.12.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore no further custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is a permanent resident as shown in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready to furnish adequate security and undertakes to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and he has been in jail since 13.12.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 9. Let the Applicant – Ajendra Toppo, involved in Crime No. 45/2025 registered at Police Station – Pasta District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(2)(3), 319, 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the BNS, be released on bail on his 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 his 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 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 5 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. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav