1 2026:CGHC:17938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1114 of 2026 1. Rajaram Yadav S/o Lt. Bisahu Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Sunita Yadav W/o Rajaram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Amit Yadav S/o Rajaram Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent. 2. A mention was made by Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on 17.04.2026, inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026. It ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.22 11:26:21 +0530 2 was submitted that, while deciding the said application, this Court had categorically recorded that the offences alleged against the applicants were bailable in nature and, therefore, the anticipatory bail application itself was not maintainable. On that ground alone, the application came to be dismissed, with liberty reserved to the applicants to revive the same in the event of addition of any non-bailable offence. However, due to an inadvertent error in the drafting/recording of the order, it appears as though the application has been rejected on merits treating the anticipatory bail application to be a regular bail which does not reflect the true intent and reasoning of the order so passed. 3. Considering the submissions so made, and in order to obviate any confusion and to ensure that the record correctly reflects the true purport of the order, present CRMP has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and the same has been listed today for the limited purpose of recalling/modification of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026. 4. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant Application and order for modification of the order dt. 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026 by recalling the same and pass appropriate orders, in the interest of justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, which was registered as MCRCA No.528/2026 in connection with Crime No. 203/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the alleged offences under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik 3 Sanhita, 2023. It is submitted that when the said application came up for consideration on 10.04.2026, this Court, upon examining the nature of the offences, was pleased to dismiss the anticipatory bail application on the ground that all the alleged offences are bailable in nature, while simultaneously granting liberty to the petitioners to revive the bail application in the event any non-bailable offence is subsequently added. He further submits that, however, due to an inadvertent typographical/clerical error in the order dated 10.04.2026, it appears as though the anticipatory bail application has been rejected on merits, which is factually and legally incorrect and contrary to the reasoning recorded by this Court itself. It is submitted that such an error has crept in unintentionally and does not reflect the true intent or adjudication of the Court. It is next contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are admittedly bailable, and therefore, rejection of anticipatory bail on merits is neither warranted nor in consonance with the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judicial orders, can always be corrected by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. It is contended that if the said clerical error is not corrected, the petitioners are likely to face unnecessary hardship and prejudice, particularly at the stage of furnishing bail bonds before the concerned police authorities, as the order may be misconstrued to their detriment. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to recall/modify the order dated 10.04.2026 to the limited extent of correcting the said inadvertent error, so as to reflect that the application was dismissed only on the ground of the offences being bailable in 4 nature, and not on merits. 7. Learned State counsel fairly submits that he does not dispute the aforesaid factual and legal position. 8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026 suffers from an inadvertent mistake due to concerned Stenographer of this Court, inasmuch as it gives an impression that the anticipatory bail application treating it to be a regular bail application, was rejected on merits, whereas, in fact, the same was dismissed solely on the ground that the offences alleged were bailable in nature and the application itself was not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the present CRMP is allowed. The order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026 is hereby recalled, and fresh order read as follows:- “1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 203/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2) and 324(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.02.2026, the complainant Mukesh Kumar Yadav lodged a report stating that a dispute was ongoing 5 between his brother Rakesh Yadav and Rakesh’s wife. It is alleged that on the said date, the present applicants, who are relatives of Rakesh’s wife, came to the house of the complainant to discuss the issue and thereafter abused, threatened and assaulted the complainant and his family members. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the FIR bearing Crime No. 201/2026 lodged by the applicants themselves against the complainant and his brother on the very same date, which clearly demonstrates mala fide intention. He would further submit that all the offences alleged in the FIR are bailable in nature under the provisions of BNS, 2023, and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application itself is not maintainable. It is also contended that despite the same, the learned Court below has erroneously considered the matter on merits and rejected the application, which has resulted in unnecessary apprehension of arrest. The applicants are permanent residents, have no criminal antecedents except one case pending against Applicant No. 3 at the stage of charge, and are ready to cooperate with the investigation. 6 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the application, however, does not dispute the fact that the offences alleged against the applicants are bailable in nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offences alleged against the applicants, which are admittedly bailable in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that an application for anticipatory bail in respect of bailable offences is not maintainable. The settled legal position is that where the offences are bailable, the accused has a statutory right to be released on bail and the remedy of anticipatory bail does not arise. 7. It is further observed that if any non-bailable offence is added subsequently, it shall be open for the applicants to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.” 10. With the aforesaid modification, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P.) stands disposed of. It is directed that a copy of this order be placed on record along with the original order dated 10.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 528/2026, and the same shall be read conjointly for all practical purposes. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the record, if required, so as to avoid any ambiguity or confusion in future. 7 11. Accordingly, all concerned authorities shall take note of the present order, and act in accordance with the clarified position of law as recorded hereinabove. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek