GHANSHYAM AGRAWAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010291662026 2026:CGHC:38670
NAFR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.01
16:07:04 +0530
MCRC No. 6879 of 2026
Ghanshyam Agrawal S/o Late Dhaniram Agrawal Aged About 63 Years
(Wrongly Typed In The Impugned Order As 52 Years), R/o Village Premnagar,
Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Incharge Police Station Ambikapur, District
Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board

01.09.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.595/2024
registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3),338, 340(2), 61(2)
& 238 of the BNS.

2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Tehsildar, Ambikapur,
acting upon the directions of the Collector, Surguja, conducted an
inquiry into the authenticity of four orders purportedly passed by the
Board of Revenue in four separate matters, including two matters in
which the present applicant was a party. During the course of inquiry, it
was found that the original orders passed by the Board of Revenue
were materially different from the orders produced/relied upon, and
upon comparison, it was revealed that the original orders had been
tampered with and fabricated. The said acts were found to constitute
offences under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Consequently, the Tehsildar, Ambikapur submitted a written
communication to the Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur
Kotwali, requesting registration of an FIR against the present applicant
and two other accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint,
Police Station Ambikapur Kotwali registered the offence against the
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),
338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
investigation was thereafter taken up.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no
material to show that he himself forged, fabricated or manipulated any
revenue order or document. It is submitted that the applicant, aged
about 63 years, had been in possession of the land in question for
more than eight years and is running a hardware shop in the name and
style of Laxmi Traders, and that one Mohammad Dastgir Ansari,
claiming himself to be an Advocate and an expert in revenue matters,
had assured the applicant that he would conduct the revenue

3
proceedings and secure an order in his favour, for which the applicant
paid him about Rs.3 lakhs. Acting upon such representation and
believing him to be an Advocate, the applicant relied upon him and
subsequently received the purported order of the Board of Revenue in
his favour. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge
that the said document was forged or fabricated and, in fact, after
coming to know about the alleged forgery, he himself approached the
police authorities. Learned counsel further submits that Mohammad
Dastgir Ansari is the main accused and has been implicated in several
similar cases involving preparation and use of forged revenue
documents, and that the applicant himself is a victim of the said
deception. It is also submitted that there is no material collected by the
prosecution showing that the applicant participated in preparation,
forgery or manipulation of the alleged documents or knowingly used
any forged document. Learned counsel further submits that the co-
accused persons have already been granted the benefit of bail by this
Hon'ble Court, including Mohammad Iqbal in MCRCA No. 451/2025
and Meena Gupta in the connected/identical matter, and another co-
accused has also been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1566/2025;
therefore, the applicant also deserves to be considered on the principle
of parity, particularly when the allegations against him are not graver
than those against the co-accused who have already been enlarged on
bail. It is further submitted that although the applicant's earlier
applications for anticipatory bail were rejected and the SLP preferred
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed, the present
application is being considered in the changed circumstance of the
applicant having surrendered and remained in custody since

4
20.07.2026. Learned counsel further submits that the other accused
persons are already facing trial and substantial progress has been
made, with about half of the prosecution witnesses having been
examined, though the trial is still likely to take considerable time. The
applicant is a 63-year-old person and a permanent resident of the
address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or interfering with the course of justice. Learned counsel
further submits that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety
and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this
Hon'ble Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the
applicant's advanced age, absence of material indicating his direct
involvement in the alleged forgery, his claim of having himself been
deceived by the principal accused, grant of bail to similarly placed co-
accused, substantial progress in the trial and the applicant's voluntary
surrender, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be
enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail
application of the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the
6.
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present
applicant, the fact that the co-accused persons have already been
granted the benefit of bail by this Hon'ble Court, including Mohammad
Iqbal in MCRCA No. 451/2025 and Meena Gupta in the
connected/identical matter, and another co-accused having also been

5
granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1566/2025, as well as the fact that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court,
the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he has been in judicial
custody since 20.07.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to
take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
7. Let applicant, Ghanshyam Agrawal , involved in Crime No.595/2024
registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3),338, 340(2), 61(2)
& 238 of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond
with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and

6
the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant 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 applicant is 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 him 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
vaibhav