1 2025:CGHC:38265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1182 of 2025 1 - Akash Ranjan Saraf S/o Shri Chudamani Saraf Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Private Service (Company) R/o Village - Sanipal, Tahsil- Sohela, Thana- Golchhamunda Distt- Bargarh- (Orissa) 2 - Chanchal @ Thabiro Sahu S/o Shri Ravindra Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Village- Nawapali Barpada, Tahsil - Sochela, Thana - Golchhamunda Distt- Bargarh (Orissa) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Of Police Station Dharamjaygarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 04.08.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this second bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 174/2020 registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.), for offence punishable under Sections 392, 142 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complainant on 16.09.2020 against unknown person alleging that on 13.09.2020, his driver Naushad Ansari gave information that some BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.08.07 12:03:06 +0530 2 unknown person in Bolero Vehicle stopped the truck and looted the vehicle loaded with iron and thereafter left the truck and driver in the forest area. It is further alleged that complainant reached the spot and went to Police Station Saraipali (where unknown person had left truck and Driver) where they instructed to lodge the report at Police Station Dharamjaigarh where the incident took place. On the basis of complaint FIR has been registered against the present applicants for commission of offence as aforestated. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicanta have been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that charge-sheet has been filed showing that the applicants are absconding and Criminal Case No. 11/2021 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. As such, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants would submit that absconding panchnama has been executed on 30.12.2020 & 27.12.2020 respectively and still for more than 04 years the applicants are absconding thereafter permanent warrant of arrest have also been issued against the applicants. He would further submit that prima facie some materials are available against applicants and would pray for rejection of grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of case diary, it is quite vivid that applicants are absconding for more than 04 years and despite attempts were made 3 by prosecution to arrest the accused, they are absconding, as such they are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 282 decided on 14.03.2024 wherein in paragraph 25 it is held as under: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.” 7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also considering the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section 482 of B.N.S.S. to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is deserved to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika