1 2025:CGHC:61846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1976 of 2025 Praveen Tiwari S/o Shri Rajesh Tiwari Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bhatapara, Matiya, Karma Chowk, Matiya, Thana - Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Thana - Dongargaon, District – Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 363/2025, registered at Police Station – Dongargaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 191(2), 49 and 109 of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution story in brief, is that on dated 21/11/2025 at 17:53 o clock the written complaint was lodged by Yogesh Kumar Dewangan alleging that Rahul Yadav and others on dated 20/11/2025 at about 08:30 P.M. assaulted to his guests with rod and balli (wooden rod), his guests namely Surendra Navle, Vijay Gangaji Bawne, Ranjit Shaligram Deshmukh, Bhogde who had gone near Gautam hotel for RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 having beetle leaves (Pan) at that time he was asking from Bhanu Yadav why his son had slapped to Yogesh Kumar Dewangan at the time of Ganesh Puja, hearing that Rahul Yadav and others including the present applicant got excited and attacked with rod and balli to his guests. His guests sustained injuries in which Surendra Navle received injury at his left hand and on head and others also received grievous injuries on the basis of which the FIR has been registered. Hence, this application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is completely innocent and further submitted that the applicant happens to be a student of MA and he ha gone to a shop to purchase some food items, and thereafter the incident took place between the victim and the co-accused persons and he has been trapped in the present case. It is submitted that the FIR have been lodged by both the parties, and the FIR No. 361/2025 lodged by the accused party on 21.11.2025, and from the side of the complainant party, one of the person has been arrested and others are said to have been absconding. Therefore applicant is entitle for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that there are four persons who have sustained injuries and out of them, one has sustained the injuries which are grievous in nature, and in the present case, there are a total of six accused persons including the applicant, and out of them three have been arrested and three are said to be absconding. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of allegations indicating that the applicant along with co- accused persons are said to have assaulted the injured persons, and there are four persons who have sustained injuries on their person and out of them, one has sustained the injuries which are grievous in nature, and in the present case, there are a total of six accused persons including the applicant, and out of them three have been arrested and three are said to be absconding, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Praveen Tiwari, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 363/2025, registered at Police Station – Dongargaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 191(2), 49 and 109 of BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and concluded the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar