JANARDAN NETAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010329992026 2026:CGHC:38378
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No.1417 of 2026
Janardan Netam S/o Ravi Netam Aged About 26 Years R/o -
Goharaparad, Tehsil Amlipadar, Police Station - Devbhog, District -
Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. - Mandir Hasaud,
District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by
SISTLA
NEELIMA
VISHNU
PRIYA
the Applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.01
11:35:58 +0530

2
with Crime No.15/2025 registered at Police Station – Mandir
Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
2.
As per the case of prosecution, complainant Smt. Praveen
Agrawal lodged a written report alleging that she had entered
into an agreement on 13.12.2024 to purchase about five
acres of land belonging to Pushpa Sarathi, situated at Mandir
Hasaud, Mana Camp Road, near a petrol pump. On
20.12.2024, she, along with her husband, sister-in-law and
witnesses, went to the Registry Office at Nava Raipur for
execution of the sale deeds in the joint names of herself and
Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal. Two sale deeds were agreed to be
executed for Rs.96,00,000/- and Rs.1,21,00,000/-
respectively. A woman was introduced to the complainant by
Anurag Shrivastava and Murli Gajwani as the landowner
Pushpa Sarathi and she represented herself to be the owner
of the land. Towards the consideration of the first sale deed,
cheques amounting to Rs.96,00,000/- were issued in favour
of Pushpa Sarathi, out of which Rs.48,00,000/- was paid by
the complainant and Rs.48,00,000/- by Smt. Sangeeta
Agrawal, which amount was subsequently transferred to the
bank account of Pushpa Sarathi on 27.12.2024. For the
second sale deed, post-dated cheques totaling

3
Rs.1,21,00,000/- were issued, following which the sale deed
was executed and the woman introduced as Pushpa Sarathi
signed as the seller. Thereafter, the documents were
submitted for mutation through the Patwari, Mandir Hasaud,
and the period for inviting objections was fixed up to
16.01.2025. On 09.01.2025, the complainant's husband,
upon making inquiries at Mandir Hasaud, came to know that
no such person as Pushpa Sarathi existed and that the
woman who had executed the sale deed was allegedly a fake
person whose actual name was Devanti Verma. It is further
alleged that Murli Gajwani and Vikram Singh Patel had
facilitated the transaction and that Ruknuddin Khan and
Satish Sinha of Birgaon, in connivance with the said woman,
had prepared forged documents and got the sale deed
executed by impersonating the actual landowner, thereby
cheating the complainant. Based on these allegations, the
offences as mentioned above have been registered against
the present Applicant and the co-accused persons. Hence,
this application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case and that he is not named in the FIR and has no role in
the alleged offence. It is submitted that the only allegation

4
against the present Applicant is that he had introduced the
parties and accompanied some of the co-accused persons,
whereas he neither prepared or signed any forged document,
impersonated any person, nor received any amount or had
any financial transaction with the complainant or other parties
and was completely unaware of the alleged fraudulent
transaction. It is further submitted that co-accused Vikram
Singh Patel and Anurag Shrivastava, against whom similar
allegations have been levelled, have been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.03.2025
passed in M.Cr.C.A. No.384/2025 and 02.05.2025 passed in
M.Cr.C.A. No.634/2025 respectively. It is also submitted that
the name of the Applicant surfaced only in the memorandum
statement of co-accused Satish Sinha, who has been granted
regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed
in M.Cr.C. No.3083/2025, while co-accused Rukunuddin @
Rukku and Devanti Verma have also been granted regular
bail vide orders dated 02.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.3418/2025 and 27.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.4089/2025 respectively, therefore, the present Applicant is
also entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail on the ground of
parity.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail

5
application.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the
nature of allegations, the fact that the Applicant is not named
in the FIR and the allegation against him is confined to having
introduced the parties and accompanied some of the co-
accused persons and further considering that co-accused
Vikram Singh Patel and Anurag Shrivastava have already
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated
19.03.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No.384/2025 and
02.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No.634/2025 respectively,
while co-accused Satish Sinha, Rukunuddin @ Rukku and
Devanti Verma have been granted regular bail vide orders
dated 23.04.2025, 02.05.2025 and 27.05.2025 passed in
M.Cr.C. Nos.3083/2025, 3418/2025 and 4089/2025
respectively, without further commenting on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant
is entitled to the benefit of parity.
6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed
that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Janardan Netam
on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be
released on bail on the following conditions:-

6
(a) The Applicant/s 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/her/them from disclosing such
fact to the Court.
(b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious
trial.
(c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial
Court on each and every date given to
him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the
trial.
(d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a
copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a
colored postcard full size photo having printed the
adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by
the trial Court.
(e)The Applicant/s shall not involve
himself/herself/themselves in any offence of
similar nature in future.

Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Priya