Regular bail granted where land-fraud allegations arise from a civil dispute, with chargesheet filed and no criminal antecedents.

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.

The 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.

During mutation proceedings, he allegedly discovered that one parcel had previously been sold by the applicant to Ramphal Kashyap in 1996.

It 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.

During 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.

The 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.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had participated in fabricating land records and facilitating the sale of the disputed land.

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.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 336, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In 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.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

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.

However, 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.

Since the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed, further custodial detention was not considered necessary.

The 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.

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.