Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Dheevar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:42758
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4350 of 2025
Gautam Banjare S/o Babulal Banjare Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Ward No. 1
Nagar Panchayat Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahara,
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
MCRC No. 5949 of 2025
Mohanlal Range S/o Shri Johatru Range Aged About 55 Years R/o Village -
Ghorbhatti, Thana And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Ps Reserve Center Bagbahara, District -
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
MCRC No. 5459 of 2025
Rajesh Dheevar S/o Late Sukul Dheevar, Aged About 36 Years R/o. Ward No. 12,
Tumgao, P.S. Tumgao, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS- Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondent
2
MCRC No. 5470 of 2025
Manharan Chandrakar S/o Late Dinanath Chandrakar, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village - Dawanbod, Tehsil And Police Station - Baghbahara, District -
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer-In-Charge Of Police Station -
Baghbahara, District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
--- Respondent
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahil
Arun Kochar in M.Cr.C. No. 4350 of 2025
For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Adv. in M.Cr.C. No. 5459 of 2025
For Applicant : Mr. R.K. Verma, Adv. in M.Cr.C. No. 5470 of 2025.
For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Adv. in M.Cr.C. No. 5949 of 2025.
For Non-applicant : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate for State.
———————————————————————————————————–
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
22/08/2025
1. Since all the bail applications arise out of a common crime number and
registered at same police station, therefore, they are being heard
analogously and decided by this Common Order.
2. These are the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail as they
have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 187 / 2023, registered at
Police Station Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegation against the present applicants are that they impersonated
co-accused namely Jugar Bai to be the vendor Neman Bai and applicant
3
Rajesh Dheever to be co-owner Manoj Chandrakar and sold the impugned
land jointly owned by Manaharan Chandrakar (one of the accused persons),
Manoj Chandrakar (complainant) and their mother Neman Bai vide
registered sale deed dated 28.9.2022 to one Pushpendra Ghritlahre and
thereby all the accused persons cheated original land-owner of the impugned
land. Based on above facts, present FIR was registered at the behest of one
of the co-owner of the impugned land namely, Manoj Chandrakar and the
applicants were arrested on 11.05.2025, 16.05.2024, 29.05.2025 &
12.05.2025, respectively.
4. Learned counsel appearing for applicant in M.Cr.C.No. 4350 /2025
would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since
11.05.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is
submitted that though two criminal antecedents have been reported against
applicant – Gautam Banjare, but from one case bearing Criminal Case No.
20 / 2016, he has been acquitted by Upper Sessions Judge, Dhamatari, vide
judgment dated 20.09.2016, of the offence under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of the IPC whereas second antecedent is Crime No. 353 / 2017
registered at Police Station Kurud for the offence under Section 279 & 337 of
the IPC for rash driving only, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing for their respective applicants in remaining
bail applications would jointly submit that applicants are innocent persons
and they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits
that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the police on 8.8.2025
and the applicants are in detention since 16.05.2024, 29.05.2025 &
12.05.2025, respectively. It is submitted that no criminal antecedents have
4
been reported against their respective applicants and conclusion of the trial
is likely to take long time, hence, they may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that alleged act is a
clear act of fraud by impersonating the original landowner and thus
defrauding around Rs 34 lakh and, therefore, looking to the grievousness of
the crime, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary of the case with utmost circumspection.
8. Except applicant Gautam Banjare, there is no criminal antecedents
reported against other accused persons Even out of the two criminal
antecedents reported against applicant Gautam Banjare, he has been
acquitted in one case and another case is only of rash driving. Further, the
applicants are in jail since 11.05.2025, 16.05.2024, 29.05.2025 &
12.05.2025, respectively; charge-sheet has already been filed; conclusion of
the trial is likely to take considerable time and all the applicants are
permanent resident of District Raipur & Mahasamund, therefore, there is no
chance of their absconding, hence, I feel inclined the applicants on regular
bail.
9. Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50 ,000/- with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They shall be released on bail
on the following conditions.
(i) 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 dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial, and
5
(iii) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(iv) They shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar
nature in future.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Digitally signed
AMIT by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
amit DUBEY 2025.08.25
13:17:13 +0530