Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14835 (CHH)

MANOJ KUMAR SAO v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/430/2025 · 2025-03-28

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:15012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 430 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Sao S/o Soti Sao Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Durgesh Kirana Stores Camp - 2, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh . .. Respondent For applicant : Smt. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 28/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.37/2025, registered at Police Station Khursipar, GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.01 12:09:36 +0530 2 Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant who is a labour on 26.02.2025 he along with his wife Ganga Patnaik went to Khursipar in order to see procession of Lord Shiva which was coming from Khursipar. The complainant after witnessing the procession of Lord Shiva went to his in-laws house and there he dropped his wife named Ganga Patnaik. The complainant at about 11.30 p.m. came to take his bike near I.T.I. ground which is adjacent to canal road, at same time the applicant came to meet complainant and demanded money in order to purchase liquor and when the complainant refused to give money, the applicant started abusing the complainant and when complainant asked him not to use abusive word then the applicant threatened to kill and took the bricks and hit the complainant in the right side of the head due to which the complainant got injured towards right ear and blood was oozing out from the same part and the applicant ran away from the spot. Complainant informed his wife Ganga Patnaik through phone about the incident then complainant wife and his brother-in-law named as Vijay Kumar came to canal road near I.T.I. The complainant narrated whole story to his wife and brother-in-law then took the complainant to hospital and thereafter the complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 27.02.2025, on the basis of complaint, police has registered the F.I.R. No. 0037/2025 on 3 27.02.2025 for the offence u/s 119(1), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the complainant, Roshan Singh, and his friends, have been harassing and abusing them since 2021.The applicant was working as an operator at the 33 KV Sub Station situated at Hathkhoj, a prohibited area. Roshan Singh, a resident of Indira Nagar, would frequently visit the area to consume liquor, and when denied, would abuse the applicant along with his friends. She would submit that the applicant had lodged complaints against Roshan Singh and his friends with the Assistant Engineer, CSPDCL. A compromise was also reached between the parties at the Police Station Khursipar, where Roshan Singh agreed not to commit any further violence or abuse against the applicant. She would submit that that the informant/complainant lodged a false FIR against him on 27/02/2025, under sections 119(1), 296, 351(2), and 115(2) of the BNS. She would submit that the applicant is a government servant and is under fear that his arrest will adversely affect his service career. Hence she prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation made against the present applicant that he demanded money from the complainant for consuming liquor, having refused to give money, the applicant hit the complainant with brick on the right side of the head due to which the complainant sustained injury towards right ear and blood was oozing out from ear and the applicant ran away from the spot, considering the conduct of applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Manoj Kumar Sao, involved in Crime No.37/2025, registered at Police Station Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(2), 115(2) of the BNS is rejected. Sd/-Sd Sd Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri