Chattisgarh High Court
Shri Punnu @ Funnu @ Laxmi Narayan … vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
2025:CGHC:17461
PATEL
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2154 of 2025
1 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Manohar Agrawal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Jhalap,
Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patewa, District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent/State
And
MCRC No. 2200 of 2025
1 – Shri Punnu @ Funnu @ Laxmi Narayan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jagannath
Agrawal Aged About 70 Years R/o. Village- Lahroud, Tahsil- Pithora, Police
Station – Pithora, District – Mahasamund (C.G.)
—Applicant
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Patewa, Tehsil-
Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
— Respondent/State
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No.
2154/2025 and Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate in
M.Cr.C. No. 2200/2025
For Respondent/State : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Dy. A.G.
For Objector : Mr. Vikrant Pillay, Advocate in M.Cr.C.
No.2154/2025 and Mr.Aman Pandey, Advocate in
M.Cr.C. No. 2200/2025
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
2
16/04/2025
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
2. Since, both the bail applications arising out of the same crime number,
therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.
3. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant
of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection
with Crime No. 25/2025 registered at Police Station- Patewa, District-
Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2025, the FIR of the
incident was lodged by Ramavtar Agrawal in respect of the incident
alleged to have been occurred in between 10.10.2010 to 19.01.2011.
The FIR of the incident has been lodged inter alia on the allegations
that the applicants have committed fraud and has prepared the forged
documents and the land belongs to bhumiswamis namely Bhagwani
Yadav, Manharan Yadav, Dukalu Ram Yadav, Makhan Yadav, Manglu
Yadav, Khorbahru Yadav and Damodar Singh have been sold to
Lajwanti Agrawal, Saraswati Agrawal, Amrit Lal Banjare. The said sale
deeds were executed without there being any permission from the
Collector and on the basis of the forge permissions prepared by the
applicants. It has been further alleged that subsequently Govind Ram
Agrawal, Saraswati Bai Agrawal, Lajwanti Agrawal, Amrit Satnami,
Kaushilya Bai, the complainant- Ramavatar Agrawal and his wife/
Rashmi Agrawal had purchased the said lands from first purchasers. It
3
has been alleged that on 15.10.2010, the applicant/Mukesh Agrawal
who was resident of village Jhalap has shown the land situated at
National Highway admeasuring 3.2 hectare. Subsequently, he had
purchased the said land, it has been further alleged that he has paid to
Mukesh Agrawal sum of Rs. 13,25,000/- and to the other co-accused
namely Laxmi Narayan Agrawal to the tune of Rs. 20,50,000/- and
thereafter the registered sale deeds were executed and subsequently
the lands have been recorded in their names. It has been alleged that
in the year 2022 for marriage of his daughter, he had decided to sale
out certain lands to make out the funds. When he approached the
Patwari and obtained map and B-I Khasra Panchsala, he came to
know that the lands sold by the owners to him and his wife are the
government lands, therefore, the FIR lodged against the applicants
and the applicants have been arrested.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in this case, no offence like Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 34 of IPC are made out as leveled against the applicants
because the entire transaction is a civil transaction and if at all the
requisite permission to sale the subject land is not obtained by the
lease holder, then also it do not attract criminal offence, as the seller of
land to the complainant have purchased this subject lands in the year
2008 and 2009 and thereafter the same property was purchased by
the complainant and his wife in the year 2011, they are still in
possession of the properties and the name of the complainant-
Ramavatar Agrawal and his wife were recorded in revenue records
and till date they are enjoying the properties. They also submit that
they mentioned criminal antecedents of the applicants in their bail
4
applications i.e., applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 2154/2025 has two criminal
antecedents, which are pending and the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.
2200/2025 has seven criminal antecedents, the applicants are in jail
since 22.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite
long time. Therefore, they prays for grant of regular bail to the
applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail
application and submit that the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 2154/2025 has
two criminal antecedents of IPC, which are still pending and the
applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 2200/2025 has seven criminal antecedents of
IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and the same have been
mentioned by learned counsel for the applicants in their bail
applications and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case
and as they are a habitual offender, they are not entitled for grant of
bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the
fact that the applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 2154/2025 has two criminal
antecedents of IPC, which are still pending and the applicant in
M.Cr.C. No. 2200/2025 has seven criminal antecedents of IPC and
Prevention of Corruption Act, however, they have mentioned criminal
antecedents of the applicants in their bail applications, they are in jail
since 22.02.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case,
and further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this
5
Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on
bail in this case.
9. Let the applicants – Mukesh Agrawal and Mr. Punnu @ Funnu @
Laxmi Narayan Agrawal, involved in Crime No. 25/2025 registered at
Police of Police Station – Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for
the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of
IPC., be released on bail on their furnishing a 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 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 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 misuses 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 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
6
trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed
against them in accordance with law.
10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an
earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from today, if
there is no legal impediment.
11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
AMIT PATEL