1. Mr. Hari Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2, on advance copy.

3. Heard on admission.

4. The petition being arguable is admitted for hearing.

5. Issue notice to the respondents.

6. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2/State and prays for and is granted ten days' time to file return supported by affidavit.

7. Issue notice to respondent No. 3 by ordinary and registered post. PF and copies within seven days. Hamdust service is also permitted.

8. I.A. No. 2/2023 for exemption from filing copy of the FIR, is allowed. However, the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh is directed to supply copy of the FIR to the petitioner being the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC as apparent from Annexure P-10 being Crime No. 1773/2022.

9. Also heard on I.A. No. 1/2023 for grant of stay.

10. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that FIR has been registered against the petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh on the written complaint made by respondent No. 3 herein stating that by submitting false statement, the petitioner has obtained second rin pustika from the Tahsildar, Raigarh. It is also submitted that the said FIR has been maliciously registered by the police authorities in connivance with respondent No. 3 for the reason that on the same set of allegations by order dated 8-6-2022 vide Annexure P-3, the Tahsildar, Raigarh had already rejected the objection of son of respondent No. 3 - Arpit Mehta to take criminal action against the petitioner and the Tahsildar had directed for issuance of second rin pustika to the petitioner and also informed to the police authorities to seize the first rin pustika vide his letter dated 8-6-2022 (Annexure P-4). It is also submitted that the order of the Tahsildar dated 8-6-2022 was assailed by respondent No. 3 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code of 1959'), and the SDO (R) has dismissed the appeal on 15-11-2022 and the further appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 is pending consideration before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. Thereafter, Arpit Mehta - son of respondent No. 3, has also filed civil suit against the petitioner which is pending consideration before the jurisdictional civil court and on 24-12-2022, FIR has been registered and on the same day, the petitioner has been arrested without any preliminary enquiry and without issuance of any prior notice under Section 41A of the CrPC, as such, respondents No. 1 & 2 have failed to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another(2014) 8 SCC 273 [LQ/SC/2014/671] . Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel, would further contend that the Will allegedly executed by father of the petitioner bequeathing all his properties in favour of respondent No. 3, has been executed by a tribal person in favour of a non-tribal person without permission of the concerned authorities, as such, the said Will is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 and void ab initio in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia v. State of Gujarat and others (2020) 18 SCC 144. He would also contend that respondent No. 3 and his son are trying to give a criminal colour to the civil proceedings after losing the case in the Revenue Court and after filing civil suit which is completely barred in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. The State of Karnataka and others at the best, proceeding could have been initiated before the Tahsildar under Section 193 of the IPC and criminal complaint is completely barred in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another v. Prasad Vassudev Keni and others (2020) 20 SCC 1. He would lastly contend that in order to avoid challenge to the higher forum, FIR has not been uploaded in the website holding it to be sensitive which runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and another (2016) 9 SCC 473 [LQ/SC/2016/1176] and the petitioner has been arrested which is ex facie illegal and bad in law in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427 [LQ/SC/2020/801] . Therefore, the petitioner be released on bail and the further proceeding of investigation be stayed.

11. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No. 1 & 2, on advance copy, would submit that against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), respondent No. 3 has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and by order dated 17-11-2022 bearing No. 288//2022, the order of the Tahsildar/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has been stayed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Camp Raigarh, and copy of the FIR has also been provided. As such, the State has acted strictly in accordance with law.

12. We have perused the entire material available on record.

13. From a careful perusal of the record, it is quite apparent that after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner made application for mutation which has been considered and after overruling the objection made by respondent No. 3, the order of mutation has been passed on 8-6-2022 and appeal preferred against the same by respondent No. 3 has also been dismissed by the SDO (R) by order dated 15-11-2022 and now, further appeal is pending consideration before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in which interim order has been granted in favour of respondent No. 3. It has also been brought on record that on 24-12-2022, FIR under Crime No. 1773/2022 has been registered against the petitioner which has not been uploaded on the website which is apparent from Annexure P-10 holding it to be sensitive and the only allegation in the FIR is that giving false affidavit/statement on oath, the petitioner has obtained rin pustika from the Court of Tahsildar and they are claiming title over the property by way of Will executed by deceased Peelaram - father of the petitioner. In case of giving false affidavit before the court, the remedy available is under Section 193 of the IPC.

14. As such, considering the nature of dispute which is already pending before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and further considering that the objection of respondent No. 3 for taking criminal action against the petitioner has already been rejected by the Tahsildar by order dated 8-6-2022 and on the date of registration of FIR i.e. 24-12-2022 itself, the petitioner has been arrested as reflected from Annexure P-13, and also considering that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha (supra), even the petitioner has been deprived of the copy of the FIR and further in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), we consider it an extraordinary and exceptional case in which this Court is inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner in the above-stated offences till the matter is heard on the next date of hearing.

15. We accordingly order and direct that the petitioner herein shall be released on interim bail, subject to his executing a personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh. I.A. No. 1/2023 is accordingly disposed of.

16. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory application and it may not be construed as the final opinion of the Court.

17. Certified copy as per rules.