Facts
The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 286/2026 registered at Police Station Champa for offences under Sections 318(4), 336, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: para. 1The complainant alleged that he agreed to purchase two parcels of land for ₹6,35,000, paid ₹50,000 as advance, and subsequently obtained registered sale deeds in his favour on 05.03.2025 after paying the balance consideration through cheque.
Source reference: para. 2During mutation proceedings, he allegedly discovered that one parcel had previously been sold by the applicant to Ramphal Kashyap in 1996.
Source reference: para. 2It was further alleged that duplicate land records were prepared in 2024, pursuant to which the land was transferred to the applicant’s wife and thereafter to the complainant.
Source reference: para. 2During investigation, the applicant’s memorandum statement was recorded on 03.08.2026, allegedly disclosing fabrication of documents relating to the land. The charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.
Source reference: para. 2The applicant claimed that the dispute arose from a family partition, that the earlier sale by his elder brother was not within his knowledge, that the land stood recorded in his name since 2022–23, and that he had no criminal antecedents. He had remained in custody since 03.08.2026.
Source reference: para. 3The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had participated in fabricating land records and facilitating the sale of the disputed land.
Source reference: para. 4Issues
Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged cheating, fabrication of documents and use of fabricated records in relation to a land transaction?
Source reference: paras. 1, 5–6Whether the applicant’s custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, civil nature of the underlying land dispute and likelihood of delay in trial justified the grant of bail despite the prosecution’s allegations?
Source reference: paras. 3–6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.
Source reference: para. 1The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 336, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: para. 1In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the character of the dispute, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial.
Source reference: para. 6Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the allegations that the applicant had participated in the preparation of duplicate land records and had facilitated the subsequent sale of land allegedly sold earlier to another person.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4However, it also noted that the dispute arose from a land transaction and therefore had a substantial civil dimension, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and that he had been in custody since 03.08.2026.
Source reference: para. 6Since the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed, further custodial detention was not considered necessary.
Source reference: para. 6The Court also took into account that the trial was likely to take time and, without commenting on the merits, held that the applicant deserved the protection of bail.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed that Ramgopal Yadav alias Nankidau be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.
The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.
Source reference: para. 8Acts & Sections Cited
9 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20236
Original Court PDF
RAMGOPAL YADAV ALIAS NANKIDAUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
