1 2025:CGHC:35458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1080 of 2025 Saurabh Meshram S/o Sunil Kumar Meshram, Aged About 21 Years R/o House No. 164, Ward No. 4, Near Gupta Store, Goutam Nagar Supeal, Bhilai, Police Staiton Supela, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 23/07/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suruksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.381/2025, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1) & 296 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, Bharat Giri, lodged a report at Supela Police Station stating that he resides in Goutam Nagar, Supela, and works in AC repair. On April 12, 2025, at around 8:45 PM, a program was underway in his neighborhood to distribute Prasad and Bhandara on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti. The complainant, Sandeep Bhadel, and Nikhil Kamde were distributing Prasad when Chhina alias Sachin Sonkar, Bhola Chauhan, and Akash Kesharvani arrived on Akash's scooter. They started abusing and arguing, using obscene language against the complainant's mother and sister. When Sandeep asked them to stop, Akash started beating Sandeep with his fists and dragged him, while Bhola took out a knife and attacked Sandeep with the intention of killing him, causing injuries to Sandeep's left wrist. Meanwhile, Chhina alias Sachin Sonkar also attacked Sandeep with a knife, causing injuries to his right arm, resulting in significant blood loss. The accused persons then fled the scene on Akash's scooter. Based on the complainant's report, the Supela Police registered a case against the applicants and other accused persons under sections 3(5), 109(1), and 296 of the BNS, and the matter is currently under investigation. Hence, the anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that neither the applicant had assaulted the injured nor was present at the spot, only on the basis of mere 3 suspicion, present applicant has made an accused. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured, Sandeep alongwith other co- accused persons with fists and knife, resulting in grievous injuries to his right arm, leading to significant blood loss. Subsequently, the accused persons fled the scene on Akash's scooter and absconded after the incident, charge-sheet has been filed against him as an absconder. Therefore, present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, it prima facie appears that the applicant is involved in a serious offense, it is alleged that the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons has committed an offense by attacking injured, Sandeep with a knife with the intention of murdering him, causing grievous injuries and absconded after the incident, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder, looking to the severity of the offense alleged against the accused / applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, reported in {(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. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Saurabh Meshram, involved in Crime No.381/2025, registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1) & 296 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil