1 2025:CGHC:3689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 81 of 2025 Abhimanyu Yadav S/o Manohar Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khukhari, P.S. Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.252/2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 296, 3(5), 324(2), 351(3) of BNS. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 11.07.2024, at about 6 pm, the complainant visiting the Bariyon market and from there when he was returning in auto-rikshaw through Shivpur, the main accused Umesh Yadav reached there with his Pulsar motorcycle and some KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 hot talk took place between Umesh and the complainant where Umesh abused and also assaulted the complainant with hands and thereby on account of that dispute, Umesh and complainant both called their family members who after reaching the spot exchanged a fight with each other and thus the complainant lodged an FIR on 12.07.2024 at police station Rajpur. The applicant who was only there to resolve the dispute has been wrongly implicated in the said offence even when the FIR was not lodged against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any of the said offence which comes under the purview of the above-mentioned offences. He further submits that the applicant was only there to resolve the dispute between the parties and was not involved in the fight. His name was wrongly taken in the aforesaid offence as an accused and there are no allegations against the applicant in the FIR. The applicant was also called by the station house ofÏcer whereby after taking the details of the incident the said ofÏcer did not believe any case against the present applicant and discharged him. He further submits that only on the basis of the memorandum statement of other witnesses his name has been brought up whereas the complainant himself has given an afÏdavit supporting the case of the applicant on 26.10.2024 and same was tendered before the trial court stating that the present applicant has no role to play in the said offence. It is also to be noted that the said afÏdavit was also tendered before the Investigating OfÏcer but the same was not considered. He also submits that there are no serious injuries 3 cause to the complainant nor there is any specific allegation against the applicant for causing any injury and further the fact that the co- accused namely Ram Pukar @ Gurbigan Yadav has already been granted anticipatory bail being MCRCA No. 864 of 2024, vide order dated 02.08.2024 and the case of the applicant is identical to that case of co-accused. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant along with co-accused persons have assaulted the victim/injured person and his parents with iron rod, on account of which many injuries were caused to them and further the fact that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused namely Mukesh Yadav, has already been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 864/2024, vide order dated 02.08.2024 however, in the present case, there is no name in the FIR of the present applicant but the present applicant is also involved in this case. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant along with co-accused persons have assaulted the victim/injured person and his parents with iron rod, on account of which many injuries were caused to them however, the injuries were found to be simple in 4 nature and further the fact that the co-accused namely Ram Pukar Ghurbigan, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 864/2024, vide order dated 02.08.2024, however, in the present case, the applicant has not been named in the FIR thus, without further consideration on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Abhimanyu Yadav on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (a) He 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) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He 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 applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their 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. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal