1 2026:CGHC:17900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 583 of 2026 1 - Vikesh Kumar Sarfe S/o Lt. Lachhuram Sarfe Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Badetevada, Ps Amabeda, Tehsil And District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Amabeda, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.04.2026 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2025 registered at Police Station – Amabeda, District Northern Bastar Kanker, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 296, 115(2), 118(2) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, a complaint has been lodged by Hirau Ram Salam alleging that on 17.12.2025, the present Applicant, along with other co-accused persons, formed an ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2026.04.23 10:50:22 +0530 2 unlawful assembly, assaulted certain villagers with sticks, and issued threats to their lives in connection with a dispute arising out of the burial of Late Chamraram Salam. It is, however, the case of the Applicant that he is a practicing Christian and a close associate of the Sarpanch and co-accused, Rajman Salam, who is the son of the deceased. The deceased, along with his eldest son, adhered to traditional tribal customs, and accordingly, the last rites were performed and burial was conducted on 16.12.2025 on the land belonging to Rajman Salam. Subsequently, the complainant and other persons, allegedly motivated by communal considerations owing to the Christian faith of Rajman Salam, as well as prior political rivalry stemming from the Sarpanch elections of 2025, instigated a dispute and threatened to exhume the body of the deceased. In response, the Applicant lodged a prior complaint before the Tehsildar and the local police authorities on the same date, specifically naming the complainant and others as instigators of potential violence and disturbance. It is further stated that on 17.12.2025 and 18.12.2025, a large number of persons were allegedly mobilized under coercion, culminating in incidents of mob violence and arson of private property. The Applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, whereas the complainant himself stands as a principal accused in subsequent criminal cases registered for offences including arson, rioting, and outraging the modesty of a woman. 3 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Learned Sessions Court is erroneous, being primarily based on the unfounded assumption that the applicant is absconding, despite no proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS having been initiated and the applicant residing within his locality. It is contended that the trial Court failed to consider that prior to the alleged incident, the applicant had already approached the authorities on 16.12.2025 apprehending communal tension and naming the complainant as an instigator, and further ignored material evidence showing coercive mob mobilization. It is argued that the complainant himself is an accused in connected FIRs involving serious offences arising out of the same incident, and the applicant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry following the Sarpanch elections. The applicant’s presence at the spot has been misconstrued, whereas he was attending last rites and was himself a victim of mob violence. It is further submitted that allegations of religious conversion are baseless and prejudicial, the offences carry punishment up to seven years attracting settled principles against routine arrest, and the applicant, being a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents, undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, thus entitling him to the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, also considering the fact that rejection of the application by the Learned Sessions Court is mainly based on the assumption that applicant is absconding, whereas no material is available to show that any proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS have been initiated against him. It also appears that prior to the alleged incident, the applicant had approached the authorities on 16.12.2025 apprehending breach of peace and naming the complainant and others, which prima facie supports his defence. The dispute appears to have arisen out of a larger communal and political issue relating to burial of the deceased, and the exact role of the applicant is a matter of investigation. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant – Vikesh Kumar Sarfe, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the 5 Court. (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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their 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 himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saxena