Surguja (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1566 of 2025 Mohammad Farukh S/o Late Abdul Rashid Aged About 78 Years and 11 months R/o Mohalla Kharsiya Naka, Raigarh Road, Nawagarh, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2025 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. 660/2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. According to the prosecution's case, the Tehsildar of Ambikapur wrote to the Station House OfÏcer of Ambikapur Kotwali Police Station, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.03.21 11:33:34 +0530 2 requesting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the present applicant. The Tehsildar had been instructed by the Collector of Surguja to investigate the authenticity of four orders purportedly passed by the Board of Revenue in four separate matters, two of which were filed in the name of the present applicant. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the actual orders and the fabricated orders differed significantly, leading to the conclusion that the original orders had been tampered with, constituting a criminal offense. Consequently, the concerned police station registered an offense against the accused persons under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It has been further alleged that the applicant prepared a forged order of the Board of Revenue regarding the land bearing Khasra No. 388/3, area 0.52 hectares, dated 01.09.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant, a 79-year-old man, suffers from various ailments and underwent heart surgery in 2022. Currently, he is bedridden and unable to walk without assistance due to his adanced age. The allegations of cheating and forgery against the applicant are unfounded, and the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to support these claims. The Court of Tehsildar is a revenue court within the definition of Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code. Therefore, the provisions of Section 215(3) and 215(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS are applicable. He further submits that the FIR can only be lodged at the instance of the Court of Tehsildar, and only upon a complaint from the Court where the alleged forged document was produced, as per 3 Section 223 of the BNSS. The allegations that the applicant prepared and produced forged documents are unfounded, and no evidence has been collected to support these claims. He also that one Mohammad Dastgir, a resident of Ramanujganj, falsely claimed to be an advocate and accepted cases from various individuals. The applicant alleges that Dastgir prepared forged documents and handed them over to approximately 42 persons, including the applicant. He further submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedent except the present case and other which is also listed today, he is in jail since 23.12.2024, conclusion of the trial may take sometime, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He also submits that looking to the seriousness of the present case, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact the present applicant who is aged about 78 years, has no criminal antecedent except the present case and other which is also listed today, the case of the applicant is distinguished from the case of the other co-accused, namely, Mohammad Dastgir, who prepared forged documents, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and he has been in jail since 23.12.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some 4 more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Mohammad Farukh, involved in Crime No. 660/2024 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on her furnishing 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 sufÏcient 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, 5 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce 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 Abhishek