1 2025:CGHC:57542 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1860 of 2025 Husain Ansari S/o Habeeb Miyan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Badgad, Korhati Tola, P.S. - Badgad, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station - Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 26.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 88/2002, registered at Police Station – Balrampur District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:36:14 +0530 2 341, 342, 427, 307, 302 of IPC & Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 22.12. 2002 the complainant namely Dinesh Kashyap has lodged FIR at Police Station Balrampur. It is alleged that on 21.12.2002, he was driving a bus from Ramanujganj to Chando, in which four constables of Police Station Chando and around 24-25 passengers were travelling. The prosecution further alleges that when the bus reached near Santoshi Nagar, around 50-60 unknown persons, suspected to be Naxalites and allegedly wearing uniform, stopped the bus and opened fire. During the alleged firing, one passenger reportedly sustained. gunshot injury and died. It is further the case of the prosecution that one constable informed the control room through wireless and requested for reinforcement. It is alleged that firing took place from both sides and thereafter the Balrampur police reached the spot, upon which the unknown assailants allegedly fled. Thereafter the Police Station - Balrampur registered a case as a crime No. 88/2002 for the offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 427, 307, 302 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act against the present applicant & other co accused person. 3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime on the basis of a false and fabricated complaint made by the complainant. He further submits that in the present case and no prima facie case is made out against him; the applicant is an innocent person who has been roped in due to 3 enmity and he has no criminal background, which clearly reflects that the entire prosecution case is false, concocted and motivated. The applicant has not committed any offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 427, 307, 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR, registered in the year 2002 against unknown persons, does not mention the applicant’s name anywhere, nor does it attribute any specific role, act, description, or identification to him. The applicant has been implicated after an inordinate delay merely on the basis of general suspicion without any material connecting him with the incident. There is no identification, no TIP, no naming, no description, and no overt act attributed to the applicant at any stage; neither the complainant nor any witness nor any police personnel has ever identified him as an assailant. No allegation exists that the applicant caused any injury, used any weapon, or took part in any assault; rather, he has been implicated only under the umbrella of an alleged unlawful assembly without any individual accusation. No weapon or incriminating article has ever been recovered from him, and arresting him after such a long delay serves no purpose, especially when he was never named during the investigation since 2002. None of the prosecution witnesses have named or implicated the applicant, and there is no evidence placing him at the scene of occurrence. The reference to “Husain S/o Habeeb Miya” appears to be a case of clerical or mistaken identity, and the present applicant has no connection with such a person. The 4 learned Court below has not properly considered the bail application, and the witnesses examined by the trial Court have not stated anything against the applicant. In view of the above circumstances, the applicant humbly submits that he has been falsely implicated and is entitled to be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present case pertains to the year 2002, and the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant showing him as an absconder. It is further submitted that in view of the applicant’s conduct of evading arrest for a considerable period and the fact that he has been charge-sheeted as an absconding accused, he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the case diary, it is revealed that the present case pertains to the year 2002 and that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant showing him as an absconder. It is further noted that the applicant has been absconding for the last 23 years and has now approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, and his conduct reflects deliberate non-cooperation with the investigation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is 5 not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, particularly when he has been charge-sheeted as an absconding accused. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, has observed that when an accused has been declared an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, such an accused is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Husain Ansari, involved in Crime No. 88/2002, registered at Police Station – Balrampur District – Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 427, 307, 302 of IPC & Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act., is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav