1 2025:CGHC:58943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1913 of 2025 Harishankar Sahu S/o Kartikram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Baradwar Tada, P.S. Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.1022/2025 registered at Police Station – Kota District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 296 & 351(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged a report at police Station Kota against the applicant with the allegation VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.05 18:47:02 +0530 2 that, on 15/10/2025, the present applicant stopped the complainant on the road and hurled abuses at her and with the malicious intent he hold the hand of the complainant and asked her "Why don't you talk to me?" and threatened to kill her. On the said report offence under section 74, 296, 351(2) of the BNS was registered against the applicant. 3. The applicant submits that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the prosecution agency for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 74, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, although he has not committed any such offence. The applicant is a student and the allegations levelled by the complainant are motivated by mutual animosity, resulting in a false and baseless implication. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble High Court, in Bhanu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRR No. 48 of 2012, has held that for constituting an offence under Section 354 IPC, it is necessary that the accused must have used criminal force with the intention, or knowledge, that such act may outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the action proposed against the applicant is mala fide and tainted, and therefore his liberty deserves to be protected to prevent harassment and unjustified detention, particularly when the FIR registered at Police Station–Kota is based merely on suspicion. There is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant, and thus he ought not to be subjected to further harassment by a motivated police action, especially when the offences alleged are triable by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The allegations mentioned in the FIR do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences 3 alleged. The applicant is a reputed person of his locality, and his arrest in this false case would cause irreparable harm and damage to his reputation, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that the material available, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNS, clearly indicates that the accused, Harishankar Sahu, stopped the complainant, abused her, forcibly held her hand with improper intent, and threatened her, and thereafter, on 24.10.2025, the accused persons again gathered outside her house and abused her. It is submitted that the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 74, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, particularly the offence under Section 74, which relates to assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman and is a serious, cognizable, and non-bailable offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant, the State respectfully submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNS, it is revealed that the accused Harishankar Sahu stopped the complainant on 4 15.10.2025, abused her, forcibly held her hand with improper intent, and threatened her, and thereafter, on 24.10.2025, the accused persons again gathered outside her house and abused her. The allegations clearly disclose the commission of offences under Sections 74, 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, particularly the offence under Section 74, which pertains to assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Harishankar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 1022/2025 registered at Police Station – Kota District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 296 & 351(2) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav