Mahendra Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Ram Niwas Colony, Namnakala v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 995 of 2025 Mahendra Agrawal S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Ram Niwas Colony, Namnakala, Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, District - Surguja (C.G.) ---Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 997 of 2025 Shivaram Nagesiya S/o Late Ishwar Nagesiya Aged About 20 Years (Wrongly Typed As Premsai Nagesiya In The Impugned Order), R/o. Navki Patrapara, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRC(A)/656/2025 vide order dated 07/05/2025, therefore, the present criminal appeals be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant – Kamla Nagesiya submits that there is no named FIR against the present applicant and no such specific allegation against her and even if the allegations levelled against her will be taken at their face value, no offence is made out as she also belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. He also submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent against the applicant and since she is in jail from 26/04/2025 and the conclusion of trial may take some time, she be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the criminal appeals as well as the bail application and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that complainant’s mother Smt. Jubaro Bai executed sale deed dated 18/11/2024 in favour of appellant – Shivaram Nagesiya after receiving 6 consideration amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- in her bank account and appellant – Mahendra Agrawal does not have any role in the entire transaction as he was neither party nor witness to the sale deed and he was also not present in the office of the Registrar at the time of Registry. It further transpires that since complainant’s mother (seller) as well as the appellant – Shivaram Nagesiya (purchaser) belonged to Scheduled Tribe community, therefore, no case under the Atrocities Act is made out. Furthermore, co-accused Yashwant Kumar has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRC(A)/656/2025 vide order dated 07/05/2025 and since there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya as well as the applicant – Kamla Nagesiya and moreover, the complainant has not objected to the bail applications of the present appellants, this Court finds it to be fit cases for grant of bail to the appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya as well as applicant – Kamla Nagesiya. 9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals No. 995/2025 and 997/2025 are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 7 dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (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 alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) They shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 10. Similarly, MCRC No. 3993/2025 also stands allowed. Let the Applicant- Kamla Nagesiya, involved in Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 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 8 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (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, 2023. (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 of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. 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 Harneet
Arguments
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. MCRC No. 3993 of 2025 Kamla Nagesiya W/o Premsai Nagesiya Aged About 45 Years R/o Patrapara, Rajpur, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.05.2025 Order on Board 1. The appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya as well as applicant – Kamla Nagesiya are involved in the present case along with co-accused Vinod Agrawal who has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 996/2025 against their rejection of bail application by the 3 Special Court (Atrocities Act), Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj in which Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate is appearing on behalf of the complainant/objector and on the query being made by this Court as to why he has not filed any vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/objector in the instant appeals i.e. Criminal Appeals No. 995/2025 and 997/2025, he states that the complainant/objector only wants to object the bail application with regard to the co-accused namely Vinod Agrawal who has filed Criminal Appeal No. 996/2025 which is also listed at serial No. 2 along with the present appeals and the same has been rejected by this court today. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the notice to the complainant is hereby dispensed with and the Court proceeds to hear the matter. 2. The appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya have preferred Criminal Appeals No. 995/2025 and 997/2025, respectively, under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 13/05/2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) and for grant of anticipatory bail, as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 90/2025, registered at Police Station- Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and applicant – Kamla Nagesiya has preferred MCRC/3993/2025, which is her first bail application for grant of bail as she has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime No. and offence. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant - Mahendra 4 Agrawal and applicant - Kamla Nagesiya along with other co- accused persons have sold the joint property bearing khasra No. 210, 213/2, 215, 240/10, 241/1, 245 area 0.656, 0.097, 0.150, 1.259, 0.172 and 0.134 hectare situated at Tehsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj registered in the name of complainant’s mother namely Jubaro Bai by executing a registered sale deed dated 18/11/2024 in favour of appellant – Shivaram Nagesiya for a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- in a fraudulent manner without any consent of other co-shareholders and without obtaining the permission of the Sub-divisional Officer/Collector as complainant’s mother Jubaro Bai belongs to special backward tribe. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants – Mahendra Agrawal and Shivaram Nagesiya submits that complainant’s mother Smt.Jubaro Bai had executed the sale deed dated 18/11/2024 (Annexure A/4) in favour of appellant – Shivaram Nagesiya after receiving the consideration amount in her bank account and she had sold her share after obtaining the consent letter from other co- shareholders and there is no fraud in the said transaction. He also submits that so far as appellant - Mahendra Agrawal is concerned, he is neither a party in the transaction nor he was present before the office of the Registrar at the time of registry, yet he has been implicated in the aforesaid offence. He also submits that since both the seller i.e. Smt. Jubaro Bai and the purchaser i.e. appellant Shivaram Nagesiya belonged to Scheduled Tribe 5 community, permission under Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is not required and no offence is made out against the present appellants. He also submits that co-accused Yashwant Kumar has