1 2026:CGHC:8872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 263 of 2026 Suraj Ghritlahre S/o Narmada Ghritlahre Aged About 25 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 45 In The Order-Sheet) Years, R/o Village - Bandha, Police Station And Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 19.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.20 15:45:46 +0530 2 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.586/2025, registered at Police Station – Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 324(5) and 109 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding Sections 294, 323, 506, 452, 147, 148, 149, 324, 427 and 307 of IPC, 1860). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Jamuna Diwakar, lodged a report at Police Station Lormi alleging, inter alia, that on 21.10.2025, between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM, children were bursting crackers in front of her house. At that time, Rajkumar Ghritlahare, along with three to four associates, while passing from the direction of Budhwari, objected to the children bursting crackers and used obscene language against them before proceeding ahead on his motorcycle. It is further alleged that after about 15–20 minutes, Rajkumar Ghritlahare and his associates returned, forcibly entered the complainant’s house, and began assaulting her husband, Pritam Diwakar, while he was parking his vehicle inside the premises. On hearing the commotion, the complainant rushed outside and raised an alarm. When her sons—Omprakash Diwakar, Umesh 3 Diwakar, and Narendra Diwakar—intervened to rescue their father, Rajkumar Ghritlahare, Dilip Ghritlahare, Arjun (brother of Rajkumar), and other co-accused persons allegedly launched an indiscriminate assault using sticks, iron rods, and other weapon-like objects. The accused persons also allegedly threatened to kill the family members and vandalized the car and other vehicles parked in front of the house. As a result of the said assault, the complainant Jamuna Diwakar, her husband Pritam Diwakar, and her sons Omprakash, Narendra, and Umesh sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of the written report, the police registered Crime No. 586/2025 on 21.10.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against Rajkumar Ghritlahare, Dileep Ghritlahare, Arjun, Neelkumar Ghritlahare, and others, and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were admitted to the Community Health Centre, Lormi, for treatment. Considering the seriousness of their injuries, Pritam Diwakar, Omprakash Diwakar, and Umesh Diwakar were referred to the District Hospital, Mungeli, and thereafter, owing to their critical condition, shifted to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, for advanced medical care. During interrogation, the co-accused Rajkumar 4 Devkumar Ghritlahare, Dileep Ghritlahare, and Neelkumar Ghritlahare allegedly disclosed that they, along with the present Applicant (Juvenile in Conflict with Law), had assaulted Pritam Diwakar with rods and sticks with the intention of causing fatal injuries and committing his murder, and had also assaulted other family members who attempted to intervene. The police arrested the co-accused persons on 23.10.2025, recorded their memorandum statements, seized the incriminating articles, prepared the damage panchnama (nuksani panchnama), recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, and upon completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the there was counter version of the incident and some of the co-accused have been granted regular bail and one of the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail and so far the present Applicant is concerned, it has been argued that the Applicant was admitted in the hospital on the date and time of the incident. He lastly submits that charge sheet has been filed, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that in the statement of injured, name of the Applicant has come into light and therefore, he is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. The material on record shows that the present Applicant has been specifically named by the injured witnesses and overt acts have been attributed to him in the alleged assault, which resulted in grievous injuries to the victims. The allegations are serious in nature and the offence is said to have been committed inside the house of the complainant. The plea that the Applicant was admitted in hospital at the relevant time is a matter of defence and cannot be examined at this stage. Merely because some co-accused have been granted bail does not entitle the present Applicant to the same relief when specific role has been assigned to him. Considering the gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant – Suraj Ghritlahre, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.586/2025, registered at Police 6 Station – Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 333, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), 324(5) and 109 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding Sections 294, 323, 506, 452, 147, 148, 149, 324, 427 and 307 of IPC, 1860), is hereby rejected. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya