Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13291 (CHH)

RAJESH YADU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1989/2025 · 2026-01-01

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:53 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1989 of 2025 Rajesh Yadu S/o Baldev Yadu Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. 290, Shiv Nagar, Nevaibhatha, Umarpoti, Police Station- Neavi, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Supela, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 551/2024 registered at Police Station – Supela, District : Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned State counsel pointed out that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the present applicant as an absconder. He RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 further submitted that three offences have subsequently been added under Sections 467, 468 and 471-B of the IPC, and that bail has not been rejected by the trial Court for the added offences, as the earlier rejection was only in respect of the offences under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the IPC. However, no bail application has been filed before the trial Court with respect to the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471-B of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application, with liberty to file a fresh application including the said offences. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 6. 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