Poshan Sahu S/o Shobhit Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Rajpur Thana v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Magarlod, Dhamtari District
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:34247 NAFR MCRC No. 4663 of 2025 Poshan Sahu S/o Shobhit Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Rajpur Thana - Magarlod, Dhamtari, Distt - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Magarlod, Dhamtari District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Non-applicant MCRC No. 4719 of 2025 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.21 11:04:03 +0530 Birbal Sahu S/o. Shobhit Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village - Rajpur, Thana - Magarlod, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) Present Address - Sahupara Bhathagaon, Thana Purani Basti, Dist. Raipur (C.G.). ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Magarlod, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.).). ... Non-applicant For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha Order on Board 18.07.2025 2 / 5 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 314/2025, registered at Police Station : Thana - Magarlod, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) 319(2), 338,336(3),340(2), 343 & 61(B) of the BNS 2023. 2. As as per prosecution story “On 21 August 2025, a written complaint was lodged at Magarlod Police Station alleging that the accused, Shobhit alias Suklal Sahu, registered himself as the owner of Khasra Nos. 8 and 9 (totaling 0.47 hectare) in Pahanda village, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, despite these lands being originally recorded in the name of Suklal Sahu, son of Mukundi Sahu. According to the prosecution, Shobhit, aware that the loan booklet and land records did not belong to him, colluded with the then Tehsildar— following an application filed on 29 December 2020 by the co- accused’s father—to forge revenue documents. On 8 December 2021, the Tehsildar, bypassing proper procedure, ordered the alteration of records to show Shobhit as the owner, thereby forging the loan booklet. Shobhit then allegedly used this forged document to sell the land to one Chandrahas Sinha for 19 lakh. Consequently, an FIR was ₹ registered under sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 343 and 61(b) of the BNS Act, forming the charge under Crime No. 314/2025.” 3. The present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, which appears to be the result of a complaint filed by a purchaser, possibly prepared by third parties familiar with internal 3 / 5 documentation discrepancies involving revenue records. The applicant and his family were unaware of such proceedings, and the matter concerns a piece of land allotted to the applicant’s father by the government in 1985–86, for which a loan passbook (Rin Pustika) was issued. This document, reportedly submitted to the Revenue Court, was not returned during the inquiry by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari. A related civil dispute is already pending before the Civil Judge Class I, Kurud, District Dhamtari. The complainant appears to have filed repeated complaints based on the same set of facts to harass and falsely implicate the applicant. Moreover, there is no conclusive legal evidence on record to support the charges under the alleged offences. The applicant, who is the son of a co-accused already granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court on 13/05/2025 and applicant Poshan Sahu in jail since 28.04.2025 and applicant Birbal Sahu in jail since 16.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, they prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. TTaking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and appellant Poshan Sahu was arrested on 28.04.2025, while appellant Birbal Sahu was 4. 5. 6. 4 / 5 arrested on 16.04.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Poshan Sahu and Birbal Sahu, involved in Crime No. 314/2025, registered at Police Station : Thana - Magarlod, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) 319(2), 338,336(3),340(2), 343 & 61(B) of the BNS 2023., be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with 5 / 5 law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Vaibhav Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice