Chandigarh, May 10 -- A district court has dismissed the regular bail plea of Manoj Pandey, accused in a 2021 case involving alleged land grabbing, forgery and extortion linked to an ancestral property dispute in Bihar. Judicial Magistrate first class Navneet Kaur passed the order on May 6 while hearing the plea in an FIR registered at Sector 17 police station under Sections 387(putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt for extortion), 466(forgery of court records or public registers), 467(forgery of valuable securities,wills, or authority to transfer property), 468(forgeryfor the purpose of cheating), 471 (fraudulent or dishonest use of forged document or electronicrecord as genuine), 507(criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication)and 120-B(criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The case stems from a complaint filed by Manish Tiwan, who alleged that he received threatening calls in September 2021 demanding that he hand over his ancestral land situated in Bihar. The complainant had stated that he suspected a conspiracy involving one Ramsurat Patel and his associates, who had allegedly threatened him during a visit to his native village days before the calls. According to the prosecution, investigation later revealed an alleged conspiracy to forge land and revenue records in an attempt to illegally transfer ownership of the property in the name of a deceased person. During investigation, co-accused persons allegedly named Pandey as the "main conspirator" behind the plan. Seeking bail, counsel for Pandey argued that he had been falsely implicated and was not named in the original FIR. The defence contended that his name surfaced only through disclosure statements of co-accused persons and that he had effectively been given a clean chit during the earlier stages of investigation. It was further argued that Chandigarh Police had issued him a notice under Section 35(3)(mandates that police issue a notice of appearance to an accused person instead of making an immediate arrest) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which generally indicates that arrest is not immediately required. The defence also submitted that Pandey was later arrested in another case in Bihar and that Chandigarh police subsequently secured his production before the local court. His counsel alleged procedural irregularities in the arrest process and argued that the investigation in the Chandigarh case had already been completed. Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that Pandey was the key conspirator in a "well-planned" attempt to grab the complainant's land through forged documents and intimidation. The state further submitted that several criminal cases were pending against him in Bihar and that recovery of forged documents was still required for the investigation....