IRFAN KHAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332092026 2026:CGHC:38325

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7947 of 2026
1 - Irfan Khan S/o Ismail Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Q-310,
R.D.A. Colony, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Jarway Alias Heerapur, Tatibandh,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Salauddin Khan S/o Alauddin Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o House
No. 215, Sonar Kolki, Ward No. 7, Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3 - Motiram Dadsena S/o Ghanshyam Dadsena Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village - Fatamunda, Police Station Agalpur, District Balangir Odisha
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This is the first bail application 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. 172/2026 registered, Police Station-
RAHUL Pithora, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence punishable
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN

2
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written
complaint dated 04.07.2026 submitted by the Forest Range Officer,
Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.), the police registered a
criminal case alleging that on 17.06.2026, a vehicle bearing
Registration No. CG-07-CM-5860, transporting approximately
23,350 kilograms of Khair wood, was intercepted near Pithora, and
the driver of the said vehicle produced an NTPS (National Transit
Pass System) No Objection Certificate bearing No. AP/KU/K/KU-
160 dated 14.06.2026 in support of the transportation of the said
wood. It is further alleged that the aforesaid NTPS document was
found to be forged/fabricated and was used for transporting the
Khair wood. Pursuant thereto, the concerned police registered FIR
bearing Crime No. 172/2026 dated 09.07.2026 for the offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the applicants
and other co-accused persons. Hence, the present bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case and
that their names do not find place in the FIR and their arrest has
been made solely on the basis of the memorandum of the co-
accused. It is further submitted that the applicants have not
committed any act as alleged by the prosecution and that the
material collected during investigation does not disclose any prima
facie case against them. He further submits that similarly situated

3
co-accused persons namely, namely, Manish Agrawal and
Himanshu Rathi have already been granted anticipatory bail by this
Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 11.08.2026 and 14.08.2026 in
MCRCA Nos. 1289/2026 and 1329/2026 respectively, and another
co-accused, namely, Prashant Kumar Bhoi has already been
granted regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
14.08.2026 in MCRC No. 7532/2026, and therefore, the applicants
are entitled to the benefit of parity. It is also submitted that the
prosecution case is primarily based upon the allegation that the
NTPS NOC/Bilti bearing No. AP/KU/K/KU-160 dated 14.06.2026
was forged; however, there is no allegation or material to show that
the applicants created, fabricated, altered, uploaded or manipulated
the said document or had any role in the operation of the
Government-operated National Transit Pass System, and the
applicants merely relied upon the document generated through the
official portal in the bona fide belief that it was genuine and valid. It
is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences, including cheating, forgery and use of forged document,
are not prima facie made out against the applicants, as no specific
act of deception, fabrication or manipulation has been attributed to
them. He further submits that the mandatory procedure
contemplated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, in
respect of seizure and reporting of the seized forest produce to the
competent Magistrate, has not been duly complied with by the
respondent authorities. He also submits that the applicants have no
previous criminal antecedents and applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are in jail

4
since 31.07.2026 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 08.08.2026, the
charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time
for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the
applicants on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact
that co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail as
well as anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present
applicants are identical to that of the co-accused.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence, the fact that though the allegation
against the applicants is that they, in connivance with the co-
accused, were involved in using a forged NTPS NOC for
transportation of approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood, but
it is also to be noted that the other co-accused persons namely,
namely, Manish Agrawal and Himanshu Rathi have already been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.08.2026
and 14.08.2026 in MCRCA Nos. 1289/2026 and 1329/2026
respectively, and another co-accused, namely, Prashant Kumar
Bhoi has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 14.08.2026 in MCRC No. 7532/2026, and the case of present
applicants is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the
present applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and

5
applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are in jail since 31.07.2026 and applicant No.3
is in jail since 08.08.2026, the conclusion of the trial will take some
more time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants
are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of
parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed . Let
the Applicants – Irfan Khan, Salauddin Khan and Motiram
Dadsena, involved in Crime No. 172/2026 registered, Police
Station- Pithora, District - Mahasamund, (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on
furnishing personal bond with two local 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 they 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.

6
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse 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 trial court to treat such default as abuse
of liberty of bail and proceed against them in
accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan