1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2554 of 2024 • Sudhir Agrawal, S/o Late Ramesh Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o In Front of Bhagat Talab, Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Police Station- Kharsiya, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) 2. Vijay Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Mamanchand Agrawal, Aged About 70 Years R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Police Station-Kharsiya, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District-Raigarh (C.G.), 3. Neeraj Agrawal S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Dabhra Road, Kharsiya, Police Station-Kharsiya, Tahsil-Kharsiya, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State/ respondent No.1 Mr. R.N. Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3 Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board (10.02.2025) 1. This petition has been by the petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 483(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 granted in favour of respondent No.2 & 3 by this Court in MCRC(A) No.786/2022 vide order dated 04.08.2022. PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.12 17:11:04 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. 19.04.2022 at about 11:50 AM, respondent No.2 & 3 and other accused persons namely, Smt. Rekha Agrawal, Hario Chhapariya and Vikas Agrawal entered in the office of the complainant/petitioner and threatened him for life, they also abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with plastic chair, as a result of which the petitioner sustained injury over eye, ear and head and he fell down unconscious. After regaining consciousness, the petitioner came to know that DVR of the CCTV, Laptop of Dell, Rs. 1,28,000/- and gold chain of 20 gms worth of Rs.2,30,000/- was not present there. On report being lodged to the above effect, the police registered Crime No.171/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 380, 448, 506/34 of the IPC. 3. Respondent No.2 & 3 along with other accused persons filed anticipatory bail application vide MCRC(A) No.786/2022 before this Court and the same was allowed in favour of the respondent No.2 & 3 and other accused persons vide order dated 04.08.2022 imposing certain conditions which are as under: “i. they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Police as and when required. ii. they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, treat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. iii. they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial and, iv. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that on 15.08.2024 at about 09:30 PM, respondent No.2 – Vijay Kumar 3 Agrawal threatened the petitioner near his house, thereafter, the petitioner lodged a report before Police Chowki Kharsiya, but the police did not take any action against respondent No.2, thus, the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail has been violated. Thus, it is prayed that the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent No.2 & 3 may be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 & 3 submits that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No.2 & 3 are baseless and the complaint made by the petitioner is vague. He further submits that as per the documents submitted by the State, no any offence was committed by respondent No.2 & 3 on 15.08.2024 at about 09:30 PM. Further, the statements of the witnesses have also been submitted by the police in which no report has been made against respondent No.3 – Neeraj Agrawal. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that after the complaint filed by the petitioner on 15.08.2024, the police inquired into the matter and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that the matter relates to family dispute and as per the statements of the witnesses, on the date of incident, no one has seen respondent No.2 & 3 abusing and threatening the petitioner. This apart, copy of statements of the witnesses and reply has also been filed. He further submits that the anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled if there is vague allegations against respondent No.2 & 3, further there is no clinching and cogent evidence available on record to show that they have misused the liberty granted to them. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 4 available on record. 8. In order to deal with the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to deal with materials available on record. Perusal of Annexure – P/5 shows that the petitioner has made a complaint dated 26.08.2024 against respondent No.2 – Vijay Chhapariya before the Police Chowki – Kharsiya. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged incident occurred on 15.08.2024 but the above complaint was not filed immediately by the petitioner, this apart, there is no any complaint made against respondent No.3 – Neeraj Agrawal. Further, as per the statements of the witnesses and reply filed by the state, it appears that the present matter relates to family dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 & 3 along with her mother Smt. Rekha Agrawal. Perusal of statements of the witnesses also reveal that on the date of incident i.e. 15.08.2024 at about 09:30 PM, no such allegations like threatening and abusing have been made by respondent No.2 & 3 against the petitioner. 9. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the material available on record, I am of the view that there is nothing on record to show that respondent No.2 & 3 who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, have misused the liberty granted to them or they have violated any conditions imposed upon them. 10. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash