Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:49186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7759 of 2025 Manju Pandit W/o Late. Nirmal Kumar Pandit Aged About 57 Years R/o B-128, Housing Board Colony, Near Gayatri Temple Kota, Raipur P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant ... Applicant For Applicant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 271/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that after the demise of husband of present victim, namely Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Sugriv Kumar Nishad, certain piece of land located in Village Kohka Ward No 9 at main road from Hanuman Mandir Road to kurud nala road in Tehsil and District Durg. The said property is located under Khasra No. 105/1, 105/2, Rakba 0.04 Hectare 0.40 Hectare. After the demise of husband of victim RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the said land comprising in total 4000 sqft. was collectively recorded under the name of victim, Shanti Devi and her son namely, Santosh Kumar Prajapati and daughter Sangita Pandit, Manju Pandit as well as her grandchild, namely Amit Prajapati. On 27/01/2022 victim and her sons and daughters have trusted the present accused, Manju Pandit and had signed a registered Power of Attorney on her favour. As and when the victim and her family members get to know that the accused is trying to sell the said land through power of attorney, on 31/10/2022 the power of attorney signed in favour of present accused was cancelled with the registrar and there is sign of present accused on cancellation of power of attorney. During the cancellation of POA, victim got to know about the sale agreement entered into between the present applicant, and accused Sanjeev Kumar Dutta. FIR was registered against the present applicant under Section 420 IPC, 1860 and the FIR was also registered against Smt. Rekha Pandey, Yogesh Kumar Pandey and Sanjeev Kumar Dutta for cheating and fraudulently entering into sale agreement in an organised manner in order to defraud victim and based on the complaint of victim a complaint was registered under section 420/34 IPC and after investigation, Section 423 IPC was added and thus the crime was registered. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant and the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant has also filed a civil suit which is pending for the consideration bearing Civil Suit No. 71/A/2022 which is pending for the compromise before the District and Session Judge, Durg (C.G.), hence, the case is civil in nature and the applicant happens to be a lady. 3 The applicant is in jail since 26.08.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of to the applicant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the complainant has also filed a civil suit which is pending for the consideration bearing Civil Suit No. 71/A/2022 which is pending for the compromise before the District and Session Judge, Durg (C.G.), hence, the case is civil in nature and the applicant happens to be a lady, the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Manju Pandit, involved in Crime No. 271/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 423 of the 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 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 4 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice