1 2025:CGHC:54617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1736 of 2025 Md. Shahnawaj Mallik S/o Late Kutubuddin Mallik Aged About 37 Years R/o Madhubanpara, Raigarh, Thana- City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Raigarh C.G. (Name As Mentioned In The Copy Of Bail Rejection Order And As Per Case Diary The - Shahnawaj Mallik @ Saanu) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate-Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. (Concerned Police Station- City Kotwali) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer SB : Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 10/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 440/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 118 (1), 324 (4), 3 (5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The story in brief is such that, the complainant lodged report in the concerned police station stating that the complainant is residing jointly with his family 2 and brothers in one house situated in Madhubhanpara Puchapara Talab, Raigarh and is engaged in the business of transport. On 28.08.2025 at around 10:30 P.M., the brother of the complainant namely, Sajjad Malik came to him in intoxicated condition and vandalized his Tata Electric Car Charger and Meter and upon stopping him, the accused Sajjad started to assault him and thereafter, assaulted him with knife. Due to said assault, the complainant received injuries injuries. Further, the wife of complainant also had quarrel with the other family members and during this time, the elder brother of the complainant i.e. the applicant herein came and started to abuse and assault his wife. Upon which, when the complainant intervened, he alleged that the applicant assaulted him and he sustained injuries over his person. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of complainant, F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and the co-accused Sajjad Mallik. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant is the sibling of the complainant and has committed theft to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the house of the applicant herein. He submits that in the CCTV Footage also, it is captured that the quarrel took place between the complainant and co-accused Sajjad Mallik and the applicant was not present at the place of incident. He submits that the complainant is a habitual offender and the present FIR has been lodged only to harass the applicant. He submits that there is no material available against the applicant and the said FIR is registered only to falsely implicate the applicant. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant has assault the complainant and his wife and due to which, they have suffered severe injuries over their person and the complainant has also suffered lacerated wound over his frontoparital region and other parts of the body which are 3 grievous in nature. He submits that there is one criminal antecedent against the applicant for the offence of gambling. He submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed and the investigation is going on and there are ample chances of collecting evidence against the applicant. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the risk of tampering with evidence, and the prima facie material collected, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, submission of counsel for the respective parties and material on record in the case diary, documents enclosed along with the bail application which clearly amplifies the fact that the injuries suffered by the complainant and his wife are severe in nature and further that the applicant is also having a previous criminal antecedent, charge-sheet is not filed and investigation is going on, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Md. Shahnawaj Mallik, involved in Crime No. 440/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 118 (1), 324 (4), 3 (5) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, stands rejected. 8. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY