1 2025:CGHC:46901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1396 of 2025 Aniket S/o Late Omprakash Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Bhatgaon, Police Station And Tehsil Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12.09.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 133/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 296, 3(5), 324(4) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Yash Kumar Singh has lodged an FIR against the applicant along with KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 co-accused with the intend that two groups were engaged in a fight and quarrel. The applicant, a local resident, attempted to intervene and stop the altercation. Simultaneously, Ward Councillor Prince Shrivastava, along with Sanjeev Sethi, Manoj Sahu, Shravan Jaiswal, Ravi Pandit, Rishi Singh, and Piyush Mehta, also tried to pacify the situation. The sole allegation against the applicant, Lucky alias Aniket, is that while leaving the scene, he threatened to kill Councillor Prince Shrivastava, who was attempting to intervene, and punched him, causing a simple injury. Based upon such, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant along with co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits the only allegation against the applicant is that he allegedly threatened Ward Councilor Prince Shrivastava and inflicted a simply injury by a punch near the eye. He also submits that the applicant is a government servant and he has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in the present case, there are four injured persons. It is further alleged that the present applicant assaulted the injured person with his hands and fists whereas the co-accused assaulted the injured by knife, on account of which they received injuries however, looking to the medical 3 report of the injured persons, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations against the applicant, and the material available in the case diary, as well as the fact that the present applicant assaulted the injured Prince Shrivastava, with hands and fists, whereas the co-accused, who is the main accused, assaulted the other injured persons with knife, resulting in Prince Shrivastava receiving injuries to the orbital region and various parts of his body, and other injured persons also sustaining injuries, although, according to the doctor’s opinion, the injuries are simple in nature, this Court, taking into account the manner in which the crime was committed, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Aniket, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 133/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 296, 3(5), 324(4) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal