1 2025:CGHC:55588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1773 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Harinarayan Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jamai, P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Tarachand Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Lamori, P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 14.11.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.14 16:01:39 +0530 2 connection with Crime No. 183/2025, registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 121, 132, 221, 191(2), 296, 331(6) of the BNS. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant, who is serving as a Transport Sub-Inspector, lodged an FIR alleging that on 04.10.2025 at about 22:10 P.M., while he along with the ARTO staff was conducting vehicle inspection near Gram Dhanwar, a dispute arose when a Bolero vehicle was stopped for checking. It is alleged that the main accused, namely Chandan Yadav, Kailash Yadav, Golu, along with other persons accompanying them, abused and obstructed the complainant and his team members in the discharge of their official duties. Consequently, Police Station Basantpur registered Crime No. 183/2025 for the offences under Sections 121, 132, 221, 191(2), 296, and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present applicants and other co- accused persons. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely roped in the present offence due to previous enmity, and that they have no criminal antecedents, which itself reflects that the prosecution case is false and concocted. It is submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence punishable under Sections 121, 132, 221, 191(2), 296, and 331(6) of the BNS, 2023. Learned counsel further 3 contends that even as per the prosecution’s own bail objection report and the police papers, the names of the applicants have not been shown as main participants in the alleged incident, and no specific role, overt act, or allegation has been attributed to them, as evident from the Police Pratiwedan filed with the bail application. The allegations in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature, and the applicants’ names appear to have been mentioned merely because the main accused persons, namely, Chandan Yadav, Kailash Yadav, and Golu who were present at the spot. The applicants were only present at the scene and had no active participation in the alleged incident, and no unlawful conduct has been attributed to them, as reflected from the FIR. It is further urged that the applicants are not named in the FIR or in the prosecution’s bail opposition report, and their mere presence at the scene does not attract any penal liability under the invoked provisions. The principal allegations in the FIR are solely against the main accused persons, who are alleged to have abused and obstructed the complainant and his team, while the applicants played no active role hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the anticipatory bail application should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case the involvement of the applicants is 4 prima facie visible. Further, a perusal of the case diary prima facie reveals that Transport Sub-Inspector Bhushan Dhruv lodged a written complaint at Police Station Basantpur stating that on 04.10.2025, while he was on duty at the RTO barrier along with Transport Sub-Inspector Siddharth Patel and Head Constable Kaushal Sahu, at about 9:10 P.M., 7-8 persons arrived at the barrier and, due to a previous dispute, forcibly entered the office and hurled obscene abuses at him and the driver, Prakash Rajwade. It is further stated that the said persons thereafter entered the residential complex of the RTO campus, abused the staff members, and even entered the room of Transport Inspector Mahendra Singh Kuldeep, where they obstructed government work and assaulted and abused him. 5. Learned State counsel further submits that the case diary indicates prima facie involvement of the applicant/accused in the alleged incident, and considering the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the investigation is still underway, no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds from the case diary that the written complaint submitted by Transport Sub-Inspector Bhushan Dhruv clearly alleges that the accused persons, in a group of 7-8 individuals, forcefully entered 5 the RTO barrier office and the residential premises within the RTO campus, abused the officials on duty, obstructed them in discharge of their official functions, and further assaulted and abused Transport Inspector Mahendra Singh Kuldeep. The allegations reflect not only obstruction of public servants in performance of their lawful duties but also acts of intimidation and assault. The investigation is still in progress, and the material collected so far prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicants in the alleged incident. The nature of accusations is serious, and no special or exceptional circumstances have been shown warranting the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, this Court does not find it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants – Rajesh Yadav and Manoj Kumar Yadav involved in Crime No. 183/2025, registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 121, 132, 221, 191(2), 296, 331(6) of the BNS is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet