MCRCA/1616/2026 of SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 29 September 2026

1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 388/2026 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Purshottam Soni lodged report in the concerned police station alleging that the applicant and other co-accused persons in connivance with each other have forged a sale-deed for the year 1994-95 relating to land recorded in the name of the complainant's grandfather, namely Mr. Gokul S/o Negi wherein, the said land was situated at Village Champa. It is further alleged in the complaint that, on 12.01.2026, the accused persons by impersonating a person having a similar name, namely Gokul Bhoi S/o Jogi Bhoi and tampering the doucments and details with the complainant’s grandfather as Mr. Gokul S/o. Negi was brought to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarangarh and by tampering his date of birth as 01.01.1948, the General Power of Attorney was executed in respect of the said property in the name of the forged person Gokul Bhoi. On the basis of the said Power of Attorney, subject land bearing Khasra No. 958, admeasuring 0.05 acres, P.H. No.7 situated at Village Champa,, Tahsil - Champa, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.),

was

allegedly transferred/executed in favour of the co-accused Sandeep Thakur vide sale-deed dated 19.02.2026. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the aforesaid crime against the present applicant and other co-accused persons against which, the applicant is apprehending his arrest.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that absolutely false allegations have been leveled against him. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that there is no other criminal antecedent registered against the applicant. He submits that the power of attorney was given by the grandfather of the complainant in his favour and also, the co-accused person has given a cheque of Rs. 19,22,201/- in favour of the complainant. Hence, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State would oppose the submission made by the cousnel for applicant and would submit that there is sufficient material available to show that the applicant along with other co-accused persons i.e. Sandeep Thakur has interpulated the revenue documents by impersonating the land owner by another person i.e. Mr. Gokul Bhoi S/o Jogi Bhoi who is the similarly named person and also interpolating the Aadhar Card has got the forged power of attorney executed. Pursuant thereto, the land has been sold by the applicant to the co-accused person Sandeep Thakur. There is prima facie material available against the applicant for commission of offence. Hence, he may not be granted anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for the respective parties as also, the manner in which, offence is committed, documents enclosed along with the bail application, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY