KAILASH JETHWANI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010339402026 2026:CGHC:39076
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1439 of 2026
1 - Kailash Jethwani S/o Late Pesumal Jethwani Aged About 45 Years
R/o Ward No.7, Patrapara, Dharamjaigarh, P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District-
Raigarh (C.G.)
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kapu, District- Raigarh
(C.G.)
Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
03.09.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by
the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No.131/2026 registered at Police Station Kapu, District
Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
Digitally
467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.
signed by
R NIRALA

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written complaint was
made by the Tehsildar, Kapu namely Unmesh Patel, on
11.08.2026, inter-alia on the allegation that the government land
of Gram Panchayat Raimer has been divided in parts and fake
leases have been prepared in the name of outsiders and fake
registry has been done by brokers, whose Kh. numbers are
479/2 (area 2.023), 467/36 (area 0.874), 467/25 (area 0.695),
467/23 (area 310/10/(2011), 0.548), 310/10/ (area 0.974)
ख
310/10/2 (area 2.758). The area of government land Kh. numbers
467/23 467/25, 467/36 are 0.248, 0.965, 0.874 hectare
respectively. The land was registered in the name of a private
individual by the then-patwari, Rakesh Sath. Subsequently, the
land was transferred to another person illegally on the basis of
forged documents. In this transfer, Halka Patwari Rakesh Sath,
as well as power of attorney holder Kailash Kumar Jetwani, the
attesting witness of the purchase and sale, and other individuals
are also seriously involved allegedly. On the basis of the said
complaint dated 11.08.2026, a First Information Report (FIR) was
registered against Rakesh Sai, Kailash Jethani (Applicant
herein), Ujit Ram, Augustus Khalkho and Lal Bahadur Yadav for
the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code at Police station Kapu.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for applicant would submit
that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
crime in question. It is further submitted that applicant is involved

3
in the business of brokerage of land from past many years and
due to the involvement of the applicant in the brokerage of land
he met with the co-accused namely Ujit Ram and he was having
the land but he was unable to sell his agricultural land, hence two
registered Power of Attorneys were executed in favor of the
applicant herein to sell the aforesaid land. On the basis of the
said registered Power of Attorney dated 17.10.2022 executed the
registered sale deed on 20.10.2022 in favor Madhu Sudan
Agarwal and on the basis of the registered sale deed dated
21.10.2022, purchaser Madhu Sudan Agarwal has preferred
three different applications for the mutation of his name in the
revenue records and thereafter name of the purchaser Madhu
Sudan Agarwal was recorded in revenue records and even the
‘Rin Pustika’ was also corrected and fresh Rin-Pustika was
issued in favor of the Madhu Sudan Agarwal. It is further
submitted that the applicant had become the registered Power of
Attorney considering the name of the original land owner Ujit
Ram to be registered in the revenue records and having the ‘Rin
Pustika’ with him. Since the name registered in the revenue
records is itself genuine, the signature of the then Tehsildar is
present in all the above-mentioned revenue documents and
hence the registration of the sale deed was executed considering
hìm as the genuine certifier. If any such name was entered on the
basis of wrong entry, then the applicant was not aware of it and
the original owner was aware of the same. The applicant has not

4
prepared any fraudulent or forged documents. Therefore, the
present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the
non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the
applicant and submit that on the basis of forged and fabricated
documents, the applicant, who is broker, has sold the property in
the capacity of power of attorney holder to original owner Ujit
Ram to a third person as such he has committed forgery and the
case has also been registered against the co-accused Ujit Ram
and the concerned Patwari and departmental enquiry has also
been initiated against him and the investigation is already going
on, therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory
bail at this stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of the offence and further considering that on the basis of
forged and fabricated documents get the government land
mutated in the name of Ujit Ram and the applicant has allegedly
sold the land to a third person in the capacity of power of attorney
holder to owner Ujit Ram, the another accused, as such prima
facie it cannot be said that the applicant being in the capacity of
power of attorney holder was not aware of the forged documents
owned by the co-accused Ujit Ram and the departmental enquiry
has also been initiated against the concerned Patwari who did all

5
these proceedings, thus prima facie the applicant appears to be
involved in the crime in question, therefore, without commenting
anything on merits, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to
the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Nirala