[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Gulab Bai Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                           1




                                                                               2026:CGHC:15078
                                                                                        NAFR

                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                               MCRCA No. 473 of 2026
                      1 - Gulab Bai Pandey W/o Late Komal Prasad Pandey, Aged About 82 Years
                      R/o Shri Krishna Gaousala Modi Chowk Thana Champa, District- Janjgir-
                      Champa(C.G.)
                      2 - Sangeeta Devi Pandey, W/o Late Alok Kumar Pandey, Aged About 55
                      Years R/o Shri Krishna Gaousala Modi Chowk Thana Champa, District-
                      Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)
                      3 - Adarsh Pandey, S/o Late Alok Kumar Pandey, Aged About 24 Years R/o
                      Shri Krishna Gaousala Modi Chowk Thana Champa, District- Janjgir-
                      Champa (C.G.)
                      4 - Aparga Pandey D/o Late Alok Kumar Pandey, Aged About 27 Years R/o
                      Shri Krishna Gaousala Modi Chowk Thana Champa, District- Janjgir-
                      Champa (C.G.)
                      5 - Archana Sharma W/o Krishna Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Indra
VAIBHAV               Vihar Bandhawa Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)                ... Applicants
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.04.02
11:04:57 +0530                                          versus


                      State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Sakri District- Bilaspur
                      (C.G.)                                                      ... Respondent

For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

01.04.2026

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who

are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.59/2026

registered at Police Station - Sakri District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the

BNS.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.01.2026, the complainant,

Manish Shukla, lodged a written First Information Report before the

Station House Officer of Police Station Sakri alleging that the accused

persons, namely Akhilesh Pandey, Anurag Kumar Pandey and

Abhishek Pandey, in furtherance of their common intention, fraudulently

declared the complainant to be dead by preparing and using false

affidavits and forged documents. It is alleged that on the basis of such

forged documents, the accused persons sold House No. 04

constructed over Khasra No. 258, area 0.1500 hectare, situated at

Village Sakri, Patwari Halka No. 26/45, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh, which was recorded in the names of the complainant's

minor children, namely Master Shukla aged about 9 years, Ku.

Parinidhi Shukla aged about 15 years and Ku. Pratibha Shukla aged

about 17 years. The said property had devolved upon the children from

their maternal grandfather through their deceased mother, Late Smt.

Amita Shukla, who died on 04.04.2018. It is further alleged that the

accused persons sold the said property to another person on

09.10.2023 and distributed the sale consideration among themselves,

thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and his children.

Upon registration of the property, the complainant came to know that

he had been falsely shown as dead and that the accused persons had

got the property mutated in the name of the purchaser. On the basis of

the aforesaid allegations, Police Station Sakri registered Crime No.

59/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468,

471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the applicants

preferred Anticipatory Bail Application No. 333/2026, which came to be

dismissed by the Court of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur,

on 12.03.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have

been falsely implicated in the present case and are innocent persons. It

is submitted that Late Smt. Amita had suffered burn injuries at her

matrimonial home and died on 04.04.2018, and although the husband

of Late Amita was under suspicion, no report was lodged by the

applicants. It is further submitted that Late Amita had already executed

a relinquishment deed dated 15.09.2010 in favour of her mother and

four brothers, including Akhilesh Kumar Pandey. Thereafter, the names

of the two daughters and one son of Late Amita were duly mutated in

the ancestral property inherited from her parental side and the names

of the applicants and the children of Late Amita were recorded in the

revenue records. It is also submitted that the competent authority had

authorized the present applicant to act as de facto guardian of the

minor children and that a general power of attorney had also been

executed in favour of Akhilesh Kumar Pandey by the other recorded

owners. Learned counsel further submits that part of the land had been

acquired for the Arpa-Bhaisa Jhar Project State Highway and

compensation amounting to Rs. 3,44,138/- was fixed in the names of

the minors and handed over to the informant. It is contended that due

to legal necessity some ancestral property was sold and, although in

the revenue records the father of the minor children, namely Manish

Shukla, was shown alive, in the sale deed dated 09.10.2023 the word

"Late" was inadvertently mentioned before his name due to a bona fide

mistake on the part of the document writer, whereas in other

documents and subsequent sale deeds, including the registered sale

deed dated 13.05.2024, he has been shown alive. It is submitted that

there was no dishonest intention or mens rea on the part of the

applicants to commit cheating or forgery and that no criminal offence is

made out against them. Learned counsel further submits that the

complainant, due to suspicion surrounding the death of his wife and

with a view to grab the ancestral property inherited by the children from

their maternal side, has falsely implicated the entire family of Late

Amita and has given a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil

dispute. It is also submitted that the applicants are respectable

persons, applicant No.1 is employed as a chief mentor in an industry

and applicant No.2 is a teacher, they have no criminal antecedents, no

custodial interrogation is required, and their arrest would cause

irreparable loss to their service career. It is further submitted that co-

accused persons, against whom similar allegations have been levelled,

have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court,

and that the applicants are permanent residents, there is no likelihood

of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and

they are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by any condition

imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail

application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute

and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the

similarly situated co-accused namely Akhilesh Kumar Pandey has

already been granted bail by this Hon'ble High Court MCRCA No. 1485

of 2026 vide order dated 16.03.2026, therefore, without making any

further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems it

appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the

event of arrest of the applicants - Gulab Bai Pandey, Sangeeta Devi

Pandey, Adarsh Pandey, Aparga Pandey & Archana Sharma, on

executing a personal bond and one local surety each in the like sum to

the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on

the following conditions:-

(a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the

Court.

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be

prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each

and every date given to him by the said Court till

disposal of the trial.

(d) the applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of his

adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo

having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be

verified by the trial Court.