1 2026:CGHC:4412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 523 of 2026 Ashutosh Pandey S/o Late Surendra Kumar Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Moharenga, Tah. And Ps Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Sho Police Station Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 412/2024 registered at Police Station AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, sold an agricultural land to the complainant, Sudhir Kumar Banchhor, by deliberately concealing the material fact that the said land was already the subject matter of a pending civil dispute. The complainant entered into an agreement with the accused and paid a total consideration of Rs. 78,00,000/- towards registration of the sale deed. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the accused failed to disclose the pendency of the civil suit relating to the same land, despite being aware of it. Subsequently, it came to light that the accused persons or their successors had already lost the civil suit before the District Court and that a civil appeal is pending before this Coaurt. Although mutation stood in favour of the accused and possession was delivered to the complainant prior to registration, the sale deed does not mention the pendency or adjudication of the civil litigation. Since mutation does not confer title, the complainant has allegedly suffered irreparable loss due to the fraudulent act of the accused. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that not a single evidence collected by the prosecution, which shows that the applicant has 3 executed the sale in favour of the complainant. Moreover, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and one co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’be Apex Court vide order 17.10.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.58755/2025 and one co-accused, namely, Ashish Pandey has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 in MCRCA No.1903/2025. The applicant is in jail since 24.12.2025, the applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which, in two cases, applicant has been granted bail by this Court, one case under Section 376 of the IPC is quashed and one case under Section 294, 323, 506 of IPC is pending, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant, along with co-accused, is alleged to have sold agricultural land to the complainant by concealing the material fact that the land was already involved in a pending civil dispute. Despite having knowledge of the civil suit and adverse judgment, the applicant executed the sale deed without disclosing such litigation, received Rs.78,00,000/- as consideration, and thereby allegedly cheated the complainant, causing financial loss, further the applicant has four criminal antecedents of the years 2024 and 2020 under the 4 IPC. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 24.12.2025, the fact that though the applicant allegedly cheated the complainant by selling disputed land without disclosing the pending civil case and took Rs.78,00,000/-, in collusion with other co-accused persons, but considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and one co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’be Apex Court vide order 17.10.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.58755/2025 and one co-accused, namely, Ashish Pandey has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 in MCRCA No.1903/2025, also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, which are four in number, out of which, in two cases, applicant has been granted bail by this Court, one case under Section 376 of the IPC is quashed and one case under Section 294, 323, 506 of IPC is pending, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Ashutosh Pandey, involved in Crime No. 5 412/2024 registered at Police Station Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 him 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 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 6 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil