Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18994 (CHH)

SANTOSHI GHRITLAHARE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/798/2026 · 2026-05-20

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:23459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 798 of 2026 Santoshi Ghritlahare W/o Komal Ghritlahare, Aged About 43 Years R/o Vill. Paraswani, P. S. - Bhatapara Gramin, Dist. - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Surname Wrongly Spelled In The Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Bhatapara Gramin, Dist. - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre through VC, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Srivastava, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/05/2026 1. This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.177/2026 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) under Sections 127(1), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109 & 3(5) of BNSS, 2023. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the concerned police station stating that on 07.04.2026 his son Hemant Yadav HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.05.21 19:29:05 +0530 2 took the tractor to the agricultural field. At that time one of the tyre of the tractor ran over the rek (ramp) of the house of the accused persons. In the evening at about 6.00 PM, the complainant along with his wife was returning back from the agricultural field. Co-accused Komal, who was standing in front of his house, had obstructed the way and asked as to who had run over the tractor over ramp constructed by him and thereafter started abusing him filthy language. This was objected to by the complainant and his wife, upon which the other accused persons also came out, started abusing and have assaulted by means of the stone, brick and the club lying nearby the area. In the incident the complainant and the other persons suffered injuries. Based on the report aforementioned, crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. She is a lady and the dispute if any, if at all taken place, is between the Komal Ghritlahre. He contended that complainant party and the applicant party are the neighbors. There was exchange of words and which suddenly took into the free fight between the family member. The injuries suffered by the complainant party is simple in nature. The applicant has also lodged the report against the complainant party and based upon the complaint, under Section 115(2), 296 & 3(5) of the BNSS is registered. Hence the application for grant of anticipatory bail may be allowed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants, and submits that four members of the complainant party suffered injuries. However, upon asking, he submits according to the MLC report the injuries suffered by the injured persons are simple in nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6. On due consideration on the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, material collected by the police and applicant being a lady, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, she shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions : (i) that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that 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. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge H.Ansari