Anticipatory bail granted to bona fide seller lacking knowledge of land’s leasehold restrictions and alleged illegalities.

The Applicant, a 63-year-old retired government employee, filed for anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 759/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC

The complainant alleged that the Applicant and co-accused sold him 1,500 sq. ft. of land for Rs. 18,75,000/-, representing it as a developed residential colony

Following the execution of the sale deed in March 2022, the Tehsildar rejected the mutation application in July 2023, stating the land was Government leasehold property sold without the Collector's prior permission

The Applicant contended he had purchased the land lawfully in 2003 and engaged a broker (co-accused Nadeem Ahmed) in 2021 to facilitate the sale, claiming no knowledge of any leasehold restrictions or illegalities

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations of land fraud and forgery

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest (formerly Section 438 CrPC)

The substantive allegations were framed under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code

The Court also considered the principle that discretionary relief may be granted where the applicant has no prior criminal intent and the trial is expected to be protracted

The Court analyzed the Applicant’s status as a retired government employee and his assertion of a bona fide title stemming from a registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003

It took note of the Applicant's defense that he relied on a broker to manage the sale formalities and was unaware of the "leasehold" nature of the land or the lack of Collector's permission

Without commenting on the ultimate merits of the fraud allegations, the Court observed that the Applicant appeared to have merely sold land he believed to be his through a third party

Given the likely delay in concluding the trial, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated in these specific circumstances

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the Applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety. This relief was contingent upon five conditions: (a) no inducement or threat to persons acquainted with the facts; (b) no prejudice to the trial; (c) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; (d) submission and verification of Aadhaar and identification details; and (e) no involvement in similar future offences