1 2025:CGHC:48810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1471 of 2025 Ajay Kumar Suryawanshi S/o Nirmal Suryawanshi (Spelling Wrongly Mentioned In Ordersheet) Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Pratapganj Civil Court Campus Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.432/2025 registered at Police Station – P.S.- City GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.09.24 15:22:03 +0530 2 Kotwali Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 75(2) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Applicant is employed as Nayab Nazir in the Nazarat Section of the District Court, Sarangarh. Prosecutrix was a subordinate of the Applicant. It is alleged that the Applicant harassed the Prosecutrix, by late evening phone calls, on 12.08.2025 at 9:16 p.m., 14.08.2025 at 9:04 p.m., and 19.08.2025 at 8:18 p.m. It is further alleged that on 23.08.2025, when the Prosecutrix was on duty from 7:00 a.m., at about 9:00 am. in the lobby/gali of the Nazarat Section, which was otherwise empty, the Applicant, with an intention to outrage her modesty, hold her hand and spoke vulgar things. When she resisted, he allegedly pulled her close by her hair, upon which she shouted, and the Applicant ran away. In reality, the Applicant, being the senior officer, was dissatisfied with the manner in which the Prosecutrix was discharging her duties. On several occasions, he had directed her to arrange the files properly, which she failed to do, compelling the Applicant, as her superior, to stay late in the office to ensure the records were in order for the next day's Court proceedings. On one occasion, the Prosecutrix even took official Court documents home with her, to which the Applicant strongly objected. On 24.08.2025, while the Applicant was reprimanding the Prosecutrix for her inefficiency, she became offended, which resulted in a heated argument inside the Court premises. During this altercation, the Prosecutrix openly threatened the Applicant, 3 stating that she would not leave him and that he would soon face the consequences of her actions. The Applicant, fearing for his safety, lodged a criminal complaint against the Prosecutrix on 25.08.2025 at Police Station-City Kotwali, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), clearly recording that she had threatened him and that if anything untoward happened to him, the Prosecutrix alone would be responsible. Upon learning of this complaint on 26.08.2025, the Prosecutrix, as a counterblast, lodged the present FIR against the Applicant. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a Nazarat In-charge and the victim was posted as peon in Nazarat. It is stated that the victim did not perform her duties, hence the applicant had warned her to mend her ways on account of which the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he had lodged a complaint for his false implication before the concerned police station at Sarangarh which was on 25/08/2025 and the same was also received by the concerned and copy of the same is Annexure A-3. It is stated that on account of which the present FIR has been lodged and the allegations which have been levelled in the statement under Section 183 BNSS is only a bald statement that the applicant had caught hold her while in the court premises. He would submit that the incident had taken place on 23/08/2025 whereas report of the present case was lodged on 26/08/2025, therefore, he submits 4 that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the incident had taken place on 23/08/2025 whereas report of the present case was lodged on 26/08/2025, further the fact that the allegations which have been levelled in the statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS is only a bald statement that the applicant had caught hold her while in the court premises and also considering the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Ajay Kumar Suryawanshi, on executing a personal bond and 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 5 dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (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 his adhaar card along with a coloured 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 himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri