1 2025:CGHC:58885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9856 of 2025 Arihant Mishra S/o Shri Ramkrishna Mishra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Koni, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1173/2025 registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 296, 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, who is a practicing advocate, has repeatedly misused his position to implicate the applicant in false and frivolous cases due to his RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 discomfort with the long-standing friendship between his daughter and the applicant’s daughter. It is submitted that on two earlier occasions between 2020 and 2024, the complainant lodged similar reports, but when it became clear that the allegations were motivated and baseless, no charge-sheet was filed in the last four years. It is further alleged that in the present case also, the complainant has falsely accused the applicant of trespassing into his house, abusing him, demanding money for liquor, and assaulting him when he refused, whereas initially the police intended only to take preventive action. The applicant submits that the complainant, being unhappy with the continued friendship between their daughters, has lodged the present FIR merely to harass him and “teach him a lesson,” resulting in his false implication in this offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the complainant, being an advocate, has misused his position and lodged the FIR as an afterthought, not on the date of the alleged incident. He submits that the complainant’s daughter and the applicant, both law students, are close friends, and the complainant was unhappy with their friendship; hence, out of personal grudge, he has falsely implicated the applicant. It is further submitted that although certain past antecedents have been mentioned, most of those cases were found to be false, and the applicant has been acquitted. In the present matter, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, and only exaggerated 3 allegations have been levelled. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.10.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is contended that the applicant forcibly entered the complainant’s house, abused him, demanded money for purchasing liquor, and assaulted him when the complainant refused. He further submits that the complainant’s status as an advocate has no bearing on the merits of the case, and the FIR clearly discloses a cognizable offence. He further submits that the present applicant has 12 criminal antecedents under the IPC which shows that he is a habitual offender, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that though the complainant has levelled allegations that the applicant illegally entered his house, abused him, demanded money for liquor, and assaulted him, the surrounding circumstances indicate a long-standing dispute arising out of the friendship between the applicant and the complainant’s daughter, which the complainant allegedly disapproved of. The defence has also 4 pointed out that in previous instances between 2020 and 2024, similar complaints were lodged but no charge-sheet was filed, suggesting prior animosity. It is further noted that while the complainant has referred to the applicant’s antecedents, the applicant has satisfactorily explained them in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, and many of those cases have ended in acquittal. The applicant is a law student and he is in jail since 05.10.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Arihant Mishra, involved in Crime No. 1173/2025 registered at Police Station- Civil Line, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 296, 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan