1 2025:CGHC:36575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1112 of 2025 • Pratap Singh S/o Garun Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o Nagpura, P.S. And Tahsil Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sargaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubweja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 28.07.2025 1. 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.52/2025, registered at Police Station – Sargaon, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.07.31 10:56:57 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution's story, the complainant Smt. Lata Sahu lodged an FIR at Police Station Sargaon on 21.05.2025, alleging that on 20.05.2025 at around 5:30 PM, accused Bhagwat Singh Thakur unlawfully damaged government property by breaking the wiring and starter of a bore-well situated in the village and issued criminal threats to the effect that anyone reporting the incident would be killed, while also using abusive and obscene language. Subsequently an FIR was lodged by one Jairam Sahu (brother of complainant) regarding the said incident, it is alleged that Bhagwat Singh Thakur, along with his brother and co- accused, the present applicant Pratap Singh Thakur, unlawfully entered the residence of the said informant, armed with bricks and stones, and verbally abused and threatened him and his family members with dire consequences should they testify, stating that they would be killed or abducted. The accused persons further pelted stones at the tractor and motorcycle parked outside the house and intimidated other residents of the locality by banging on doors and issuing similar threats against giving evidence. On the following morning, i.e., 21.05.2025 at around 9:00 AM, co-accused Govardhan Singh Thakur allegedly broke a water pipe outside the complainant's house, and upon being stopped by the complainant's grandmother, attempted to assault her with a stone but was restrained by Jeevan Sahu, shortly thereafter, Bhagwat Singh Thakur allegedly arrived at the scene and slapped Jeevan Sahu. Based on the 3 aforementioned sequence of incidents, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to personal enmity. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was not named in the first FIR (FIR No. 50/2025) lodged by Jairam Sahu, which was filed immediately after the alleged incident and is the earliest version of the complaint. The subsequent naming of the applicant in FIR No. 52/2025 by Lata Sahu is clearly an afterthought, which casts serious doubt on the veracity and credibility of the allegations made therein. He further submits that the filing of two successive FIRs based on the same incident-first by Jairam Sahu and later by his sister Lata Sahu amounts to multiple versions of the same occurrence, which is impermissible in law and indicative of a motivated attempt to exaggerate the incident by including additional accused persons at a later stage. This creates serious doubt about the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution's version. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that there is eight criminal antecedents and five istagasa pending against the present applicant, he is a habitual 4 offender. Therefore, 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 nature and gravity of the offence and material available on record in the case diary and also considering the fact that there is eight criminal antecedents and five istagasa pending against the present applicant, he is a habitual offender as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants– Pratap Singh filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved inCrime No.52/2025, registered at Police Station – Sargaon, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali