Raipur, C.G v. State Of Chhattisgarh Throug Station House Officer
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5821 of 2025 Likyan Walter S/o Late John Kilton Walter Aged About 53 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Canal Road Raipur, P.S. - New Rajendra Nagar AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN District - Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Throug Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Kurud, Dist.- Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
present case. He further submits that prima facie involvement of the applicant is evident. The case involves the execution of a sale deed by presenting someone other than the actual landowner and 4 obtaining the sale consideration through deceit, it relates to the forgery of documents with the intention of deceit and using such forged documents as genuine, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 17.04.2025, the fact that though prima facie it is alleged that the applicant was involved in execution of a sale deed by presenting someone other than the actual landowner and obtaining the sale consideration through deceit, which relates to the forgery of documents with the intention of deceit and using such forged documents as genuine, but the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Likyan Walter, involved in Crime No. 106/2021 registered at Police Station Kurud, Dist.- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 120-B of IPC, 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 5 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, 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil
Arguments
Mr. Palaash Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh k. Pande, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 106/2021 registered at Police Station Kurud, Dist.- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 120-B of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Anbarul 2 Hasan, filed a complaint with Kurud Police Station stating that on September 15, 2017, he paid Rs.3,00,000/- through a cheque to the landowner, Samaru Ram, in the presence of land broker Linken Walter (also known as Licken Walter). The sale agreement and a general power of attorney related to the land were registered at the Registration OfÏce in Raipur. It was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- would be paid after the mutation process. About a year after the execution of the sale agreement and power of attorney, at the behest of Linken Walter and Samaru Ram Verma, the registration of the land was executed at the Tehsil OfÏce in Kurud, District Dhamtari. When the complainant summoned the landowner through the broker for mutation proceedings, he discovered at the Tehsil OfÏce that Samaru Ram's identity card was fake and that Samaru Ram Verma was not the actual landowner. Based on the complainant's report alleging that the accused had obtained money fraudulently and deceitfully, the Kurud Police Station registered a case against the accused under Crime No. 106/2021, Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC, and initiated an investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the case is of civil nature that has been given a criminal color, as disputes related to registered sale deeds are typically resolved through civil suits, and challenging the validity of such deeds would usually fall within the purview of civil litigation. Furthermore, The dispute revolves around a partial 3 payment issue, and notably, the Power of Attorney (POA) remains unrevoked. He also submits that the complainant willingly executed the sale agreement and did not raise objections at any relevant stage. The sale consideration was paid voluntarily after the complainant had the opportunity to perform due diligence. The complainant failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and also did not pay the commission to the applicant/accused. This led to a dispute between them, and the complainant, in a pre- planned manner, lodged a false complaint with the Kurud police station. He later submits that if the agreement and registration of the land were done through someone other than the actual landowner Samaru Ram, it is likely that the real Samaru Ram would have filed a complaint with the police regarding this matter. Additionally, the accused has been unwell for the past 2 years, suffering from paralysis, heart disease, and brain hemorrhage, which has affected his mental balance. He is undergoing regular treatment at Shri Krishna Hospital and Urmila Memorial Hospital in Raipur. The applicant is in jail since 17.04.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the