Korea, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikunthpur, District
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:17637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 410 of 2025 1 - Ramkumar Ravi Alias Ramjee Singh Ravi S/o Nandlal Ravi Aged About 40 Years R/o Makan No. 62, M.L.A. Nagar, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rimpal Singh Ramjee Ravi D/o Nand Kishor Aged About 35 Years R/o Makan No. 62, M.L.A. Nagar, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District - Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants For Non-applicant/State For Objector
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing 2. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.64/2025 registered at Police Station- Baikunthpur District- Korea, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 329, 341(4), 305 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant has sold one land bearing Khasra No. 243/2 total measuring 230 Square feet, house No. 62, located in M.L.A Nagar, Baikunthpur was sold to the applicant and when the complainant was arrested and in jail for other offences at that point of time the present applicants have trespassed and captured the complainants house No. 93, Khasra No. 243/3. When the complainant was released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court he has lodged an FIR. On the said allegations, the FIR was registered in Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh against the applicants under section 329, 341(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations has been made against the applicants are vague and has been made just to protect themselves from the FIR lodged by the applicant. The factual background of the matter is that the applicant No. 1 has purchased a land from complainant for total measuring 1500sq feet in MLA Nagar, Baikunthpur for total sum of rupees 25,00,000/- in year 2017. The complainant had fraudulently shown Khasra No. 243/3 to the applicant and by fabricating the registry papers and documents he has sold Khasra No. 243/2 only 230sq feet to the applicant, therefore the applicant No. 1 has lodged an FIR bearing crime No. 326/2020 under Section 294, 506, 420, 120(B), 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in Police Station Baikunthpur against the present complainant. He further submits that being aggrieved by the FIR lodged by the applicant No. 1, the complainant on 23.02.2023 has misbehaved and has harassed the applicant No.2 in the middle of the street therefore another FIR bearing Crime no. 3 55/2023 was lodged against the complainant by the applicant No. 2 on 02.03.2023 against the complainant. The complainant was apprehending his arrest in relation to the FIR made by applicant No. 1 therefore he had preferred a bail application before this High Court which is registered as CRA No. 568/2021 which was subsequently rejected by this Hon'ble High Court on dated 05.07.2021. The complainant thereafter has preferred a bail application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No. 5321/2021 whereby the complainant has himself submitted that both the party are ready to compromise between them and has prayed for the grant of bail, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the submission of the complainant has directed the complainant to deposit sum of rupees 22,50,000/- and thereafter the anticipatory bail has been granted to the complainant and it is pertinent to mention herein that as the submission has been made by the complainant before Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the compromise between the parties, the complainant has himself given the keys of his house no. 93, Khasra No. 243/3 to the applicants and has asked the applicants to move into the said house and has promised to register the said house in the name of applicant after grant of his bail further it is pertinent to mention herein that as the benefit of bail has been given to the complainant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complainant has lodged present FIR to settle personal scores against the applicants. The present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the FIR already lodged by the applicants against the complainant. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the Non- 4 applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the objector appearing for the complainant oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the applicants/accused are charged with breaking into a house on land plot number 234/3, stealing and taking possession of the property. They claim to have agreed to purchase house number 93 from the complainant, but according to the bank notice, they purchased land plot number 234/2, area 0.0020 hectares, which is a different property. Given these circumstances and another case against applicant Ramkumar Ravi for housebreaking and rape (case 49/25 under sections 64, 331(2), 332(b), and 351 BNS), granting anticipatory bail to the applicants/accused, Ramkumar Ravi alias Ramjee Singh Ravi and Rimpl Singh, does not seem appropriate. Hence, their bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the applicants are alleged to have trespassed and captured the house No. 93, Khasra No. 243/3 which is of the complainant, but the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR already lodged by the applicants against the complainant, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, applicant No.1 has only one criminal antecedent and the applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 5 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants- Ramkumar Ravi Alias Ramjee Singh Ravi and Rimpal Singh Ramjee Ravi on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- threat (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any to any person inducement, acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. or promise (b) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal