1 2025:CGHC:53890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1687 of 2025 Brijbhaal @ Manoj Pandey S/o Sabhajit Pandey, Aged About 52 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Mahadev Ghat, Raipura, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate- Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).....(Concerned Police Station Rakhi) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 04/11/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been 9led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 165/2025 registered at Police Station – Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the o=ence punishable under Sections 324(4), 221, 132 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the incident originated from a written complaint dated 09.10.2025 lodged by Sanjay Tiwari, Additional Director, O>ce of the Directorate of Public Relations, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Indrawati Bhavan, Raipur. In his report, the complainant alleged that on 09.10.2025 at about 12:30 PM, while he was sitting in his o>ce and conversing with a senior journalist of Channel India, namely Pawan Dubey, four unknown persons suddenly entered his o>ce premises. Since the o>ce space was limited, Pawan Dubey left the room. Thereafter, one of the intruders, wearing a black shirt and identifying himself as “Toushif” or “Tokir,” claiming to be a journalist, pointed towards another person and stated that he had been manhandled the previous day. When the complainant asked them to sit and explain the matter, the said person responded that they had not come to sit and began quarrelling with him. On being asked to leave the o>ce, the four individuals allegedly refused and, upon the complainant’s attempt to remove them, they caught hold of him, forcing the complainant to free himself and run outside to save his life. The altercation allegedly continued outside the o>ce for about 10–15 minutes. It is further alleged that thereafter, the present applicant, who is the Editor of Buland Chhattisgarh, entered the o>ce and began conversing about the incident. During this time, the complainant overheard a telephonic conversation wherein the said four persons informed the applicant that it was he who had brought them to the o>ce and that a video of the incident had been recorded. Based on this report, the police registered a case against four unknown persons, however, apprehending arrest in the said crime, the present applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the trial Court, which was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2025. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged o=ence. It is contended that the applicant is the Editor of a weekly newspaper namely Buland Chhattisgarh, and prior to the alleged incident, on 08.10.2025, he had submitted a written complaint before the Commissioner against the informant, who had misbehaved with one of the applicant’s employees, namely Abhay Saha. It is urged that due to this complaint, the informant developed animosity and grudge against the applicant and, in retaliation, has falsely implicated him along with four unknown persons in the present case. It is further submitted that no o=ence, much less any o=ence under Sections 324(4), 221, 132, 296, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, is made out against the applicant, as the essential ingredients of the said o=ences have not been satis9ed by the prosecution. He further contends that it is highly improbable that an accused person would appear before the complainant immediately after the alleged incident and engage in a telephonic conversation in such a manner that it could be overheard and used to allege conspiracy, thereby self-incriminating himself. It is further submitted that the o=ences alleged are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Moreover, after registration of the FIR, the police authorities have allegedly misused their power and harassed the wife and child of the applicant, thereby subjecting the applicant and his family to unnecessary victimization merely for raising their voice against the wrongful conduct of the informant. In 4 view of the above facts and circumstances, it is submitted that this is a 9t case for the indulgence of this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and grant him the bene9t of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the material available in the case diary and the statement of the complainant clearly point towards the active involvement of the applicant/accused Manoj Pandey in the commission of the o=ence. The assailants have themselves disclosed that the incident was committed at the instance of the present applicant/accused, which shows his direct complicity and instigation. The nature of the allegations involves criminal intimidation, assault, and damage to public property, which are serious and grave o=ences a=ecting public order. The investigation is still in progress, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the investigation and may result in tampering with evidence or inHuencing witnesses. Accordingly, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the allegations against the applicant are primarily founded on personal animosity arising out of a prior complaint lodged by the applicant against the informant and there is no speci9c material on record to indicate the direct involvement or active participation of the applicant in the alleged incident and further the applicant has 5 two criminal antecedents as explained in the bail application of para No.4(A), thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is 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 applicant – Brijbhaal @ Manoj Pandey on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting O>cer, 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. (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 veri9ed by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve themself in any o=ence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal