Nikahat Ali v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1452 of 2019 • Nikahat Ali S/o Vaaris Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 17/682, Civil Line, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent _______________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Ms. Anamika Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Alok Nigam, G.A.

__________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board /11/2019

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 255/2019 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur, (C.G.). for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the prosecution story, the land in question belongs to one Mrs. Bindu Kumar and the said land is also registered in the revenue records. She purchased the land in the year 2013. Allegation against present applicant is that, he prepared one unregistered sale deed and on the basis of that document, filed an application for mutation of said land in his name. On being inquired, it was found by Nayab Tahsildar that unregistered sale deed prepared by the applicant is forged. Thereafter, Nayab Tahsildar made a report and on the basis of the said, offence has been registered.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present

case. She further submits that prima facie, no offence can be made out against present applicant. Applicant is a reputed person. Therefore, it is prayed that he may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth on behalf of the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, prima facie, sufficient mateial is available against applicant, therefore, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash