1 2025:CGHC:16915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 508 of 2025 • Devjeet Singh S/o Shri Ramnath Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jatro Ps Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Non- applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 166/2024, registered at Police Station – Balrampur, District – Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of BNS Act. 3. As per the prosecution story, a report was made by complainant namely Dilip Singh in which he was stated that on dated 05- 06.11.2024 from night his daughter Chanchala Singh without any VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.04.21 11:45:08 +0530 2 information gone from the house, by which missing report was lodged and during search nephew of the complainant namely Anurag Singh told him Chanchala Singh has inserted the status in night in her Instagram account that, Sonu Singh & his elder Brother beaten and threaten her. That on 08.11.2024 at morning 8 am malti & Sushma came in house of the complainant and told him death body of the Chanchala Singh float well of the Chandra Gupta Singh then they have went toward seen that death body of the hit daughter float on the water. On the basis of the complainant police has registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant & other Co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the alleged offence are not made out against the applicant because no single evidence collected by the prosecution which shown that applicant has beaten and threaten to the deceased. He also submits that applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the direction and condition which may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicant has been absconding since the incident. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary and also considering the fact that the 3 applicant has been absconding since the date of the incident when the FIR was registered, the applicant has given an explanation for non-appearance before the trial Court, but the same is not a plausible one, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Devjeet Singh filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.166/2024, registered at Police Station–Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali