Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 553 of 2025 Mohammad Iqbal S/o Late Kalam Aged About 45 Years R/o Nawagarh, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant For Non-Applicant : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 22/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this case have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 658/2024 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Ambikapur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that the Court of Tehsildar, Ambikapur, MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.04.24 18:21:09 +0530 2 District Surguja, received a letter from the Collector, District Surguja, regarding the authenticity of alleged forged orders from the Revenue Board, CG, Bilaspur. The Revenue Board had examined the original orders and found discrepancies, indicating that the orders presented by the applicant, Mohd. Iqbal, were forged. The Collector directed the Court of Tehsildar to register an FIR against the applicant for presenting forged orders. In compliance with this direction, the Court of Tehsildar requested the Police Station In-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Ambikapur, to register an FIR and take strict punitive action against the applicant. Therefore, offence under Section 318(4), 338, 336 (3) & 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been registered against the present applicant and the other co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case the applicant is the victim not the accused because the present applicant's father namely Late Mohammad Kalam bought a tribal land Khasra No. 258 admeasuring 15 dismil near Mahamaya Mandir, village Nawagarh from one tribal person namely Mangal Say decades ago and in the said land the present applicant is residing in the house since 2012 after the permission of his father and mother. However, the seller of the said land was a tribal person due to which applicant’s father was unable to registered the sale deed. In- between the present applicant came to know that if an application under section 170(B) be moved before the Sub Divisional magistrate to mutate the said land in his name due to which present applicant use to go to the Court of Sub Divisional magistrate. During on such Court dates the present applicant meet the co- accused namely 3 Dastgir Ansari and when the co-accused Dastgir Ansari knows the issues of the present applicant he assured him that he had good knowledge of revenue cases further showed the some identical orders of revenue cases and further made the present applicant to believe that he had a good approach with the authorities to allow his application of Section 170(B) for which the co-accused Dastgir Ansari have charged the present applicant Rs. 3,50,000/-as his legal fees and the same paid by the applicant through bank of HDFC on various dates to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/-. He further submits that the present applicant had no knowledge of revenue case filed before Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. Further, the present applicant neither sworn any afÏdavit for the case of Board of Revenue, it is also pertinent to mention here that, the co-accused Dastgir Ansari have taken the present applicant signatures on black white page stating that the co-accused Dastgir need those signatures to file memo of appearance. Further, the mutation proceeding which was initiated before the Teshildar, Ambikapur was dully represented by the all legal heirs of Mangal Say and in the presence of the all legal heirs of Mangal Say, the order Dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Tehshildar. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present applicant was under the impression that the co-accused Dastgir Ansari is helping proceedings under section 170(B) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and under the impression that the co- accused is a legal person (lawyer) and the present applicant had no knowledge the co-accused had filed any case before the Board of Revenue Bilaspur. In the present case the present applicant is the 4 victim because the co-accused impersonated himself as a legal person and also committed the fraud with the present applicant. Right after the knowledge in the identical case in crime No. 595/24 were the co-accused Dastgir have committed the fraud and he is not lawyer therefore, the present applicant had made written complaint before the Station-In charge on 27.09.2024 and when no action was taken by the police authorities then a written complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur, Surajpur on 23.10.2024. The present applicant is the middle age man and he is experiencing the heart problem and due to which the doctor has suggested Angiography due to the continuous pain in the chest. In the identical case where the со- accused Dastgir, had committed same fraud with other person also in crime No 595/2024 & 659/2024 against Ashok Agrawal and Smt Meena Gupta in those identical cases the Hon'ble High Court had grant them anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that from perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant allegedly obtained tribal land transfer by presenting a forged Revenue Board order to the Tehsildar Court. The applicant claims he was deceived by another person who provided the fake order. Further evidence is needed and the case is under investigation. Given the current evidence, granting anticipatory bail doesn't seem appropriate. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 5 documents taken on record. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and material available in case diary and further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent thus, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mohammad Iqbal on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant 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. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manish