1 2025:CGHC:37735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1150 of 2025 1 - Nanak Bansal S/o Sagarmal Bansal, Aged About 51 Years (Aadhar No. 5171 7279 6268) R/o House No. - 1165, Gurushree Villa, Ward No. 04, Near Mahindra Showroom, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Bansal, S/o Sagarmal Bansal, Aged About 40 Years (Aadhar No. 6522 8569 0147) R/o House No. - 1165, Gurushree Villa, Ward No. 04, Near Mahindra Showroom, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Baradwar, Revenue District – Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate, as well as Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Advocate General. For Objector/Complainant: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 192/2025 registered at Police Station – Baradwar, Revenue District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that vide written complaint dated 18.07.2025, the complainant namely Raghubir Singh Sisodiya filed a RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 report stating therein that the complainant owns a piece of land situated at Village-Chitapandariya, Khasra no. 5/2 and 5/20, respectively admeasuring 15 acres and 10 acres. A portion of 12.50 acres of Khasra no. 5/2 has been granted on a 30 years Lease i.e. from 2011 to 2031, to M/s Gurushree Industries Private Limited (Directors- Nanak Bansal & Mukesh Bansal) for the purpose of mining activities. On 03.11.2021, the accused persons have fraudulently and contrary to the terms of the agreement, obtained a permission for back filling of mines area with Fly- Ash. On 17.01.2024 @ 1:00 PM, the complainant along with his nephew Kirti Singh Sisodiya & one known Mahendra Singh Kshatariya, went to mine and confronted the accused person, as to why they have obtained back-filling permission contrary to the terms of the agreement, to which, the accused persons threatened the complainant to his life and told him to stay away from this else they would get the complainant killed. The complainant contacted the accused persons many times, and the accused persons on many occasions threatened the complainant to his life, due to which, the complainant is scared. The accused persons have on complainant's private land have forcibly constructed Staff Room, weighing room, due to which the complainant is unable to perform farming activities, due to which every year, the complainant is incurring loss of Lakhs of rupees. on the aforesaid written complaint dated 18.07.2025, an FIR was registered against the accused/applicant herein for offence punishable under Section 420, 506, 34 of the BNS. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per the prosecution case, there appears to be no offence committed by the applicants punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the only allegation of threatening to the complainant has been levelled against the 3 applicant, and the complainant had already filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of agreement executed by and between the parties before the Civil Court at Sakti. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there appears to be no offence committed by the applicants punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the only allegation of threatening to the complainant has been levelled against the applicant, and the complainant had already filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of agreement executed by and between the parties before the Civil Court at Sakti. Hence, it transpires that the nature of dispute between the parties are civil in nature, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Nanak Bansal and Mukesh Bansal on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant 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. 4 (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant 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 alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve themself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rajshekhar