1 2026:CGHC:20715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 658 of 2026 Namrata Sahu D/o. Gyanchand Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o. Budhwaripara, Ward No. 13, Dongargarh, Tehsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.05.2026 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 her arrest in connection with Crime No. 574/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 117(2), 117(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that the complainant, Sudhakar Sahare, lodged a report stating that his younger son, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sarthak Sahare, aged about 13 years and a student of Class 7 at Khalsa Public School, had gone to school on 02.07.2025 in the ordinary course, and during a Social Studies (SST) class, upon his delay in opening the textbook, the class teacher, i.e., the present applicant, allegedly complained to the authorised Principal, co- accused Priyanka Singh, who was nearby, stating that the ward was showing attitude, pursuant to the said complaint, co-accused Priyanka Singh allegedly twisted the ear of the child and slapped him on both ears, as a result of which, after some time, the child reportedly lost his hearing ability, upon returning home, the child informed his family that he was unable to hear, following which he was taken for treatment on 03.07.2025 to an ENT specialist, Dr. Ashwini Sethi, and was admitted to Sparsh Care Hospital, thereafter, the matter was reported to the school Principal, and on 06.07.2025, the child was discharged and subsequently taken to another ENT specialist, Dr. Anuj Jamulkar, where it was found that the veins of both ears had been damaged due to the alleged assault, it is further alleged that although the matter was reported to the school management and they initially assured to bear the medical expenses and requested that no report be lodged, they failed to do so, and thereafter treatment was continued at a Government Hospital. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case, her role is limited only to informing the co-accused, Priyanka 3 Singh, about the alleged attitude of the ward, and beyond this, no overt act is attributed to her. It is further submitted that there is no allegation whatsoever that the applicant assaulted or even touched the ward, namely Sarthak Sahare, and the allegation of assault is solely against the co-accused. The applicant, in discharge of her duty as a teacher, merely reported that the student was not paying proper attention and had not opened his book, and except for this, no other allegation exists against her. It is also contended that the alleged incident is dated 02.07.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.11.2025, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about four months, and further, the investigation was initiated only on 11.04.2026, i.e., after about eight months. It is additionally submitted that though the FIR was initially registered under Sections 117(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Section 117(3) has been deliberately added by the police without any supporting medical treatment justifying the same. He further submits that even as per the FIR, no allegation is made against the applicant regarding any act of assault, and the entire accusation pertains to the co-accused Priyanka Singh. It is also pointed out that an inquiry conducted by the Block Education Officer clearly concludes that the applicant did not assault the ward, and a copy of the inquiry report has been filed as Annexure A/3. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant, being an unmarried lady, has no involvement in the alleged offence and has been unnecessarily implicated merely on the basis that she made a complaint to the co-accused. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the allegations disclose a serious incident involving a minor student who suffered loss of hearing due to the acts committed within the school premises, and the role of the present applicant cannot be viewed in isolation as she actively instigated the incident by complaining to the co- accused about the conduct of the ward, which directly led to the assault. It is further submitted that the applicant was part of the chain of events culminating in the offence, and therefore, her complicity cannot be ruled out at this stage. The delay in lodging the FIR is duly explained considering the medical condition and continuous treatment of the victim, and the offences invoked, including the relevant provisions of the BNS, have been rightly applied based on the medical evidence and nature of injuries. It is thus contended that considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the present applicant is limited inasmuch as she is alleged only to have informed the co-accused, Priyanka Singh, regarding the conduct of the ward, and there is no specific allegation that the applicant herself committed any act of assault or 5 physically touched the victim, rather, the allegation of physical assault is specifically against the co-accused, Priyanka Singh, thereby making the case of the present applicant clearly distinguishable from that of the co-accused. It is also pertinent to note that there is an inordinate delay of about four months in lodging the FIR, which has not been satisfactorily explained, coupled with the fact that the investigation itself commenced after a considerable delay. Further, the inquiry conducted by the Block Education Officer prima facie indicates that no act of assault has been attributed to the present applicant. The applicant is a lady, stated to be unmarried, and no criminal antecedents have been brought on record. In view of the limited and distinguishable role assigned to the applicant, absence of direct allegations of assault, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the overall facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Namrata Sahu on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. 6 (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan