1 2026:CGHC:22677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 744 of 2026 Azad Iraqi S/o Riyazuddin Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village- Jainagar, Police Station- Jainagar, Tehsil- Latori, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏce, P. S. - Manipur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 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. 80/2026 registered at Police Station Manipur, District - Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 132, 221, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) fo the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that the complainant namely Ravi Shankar Pal, who is stated to be the driver of a JCB vehicle, lodged a report alleging that on 02.05.2026, in compliance RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 with the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, certain land near New Bus Stand, Ambikapur, HDFC ATM, Ring Road, Ambikapur was being levelled by filling a pond with soil, and during the said work, the complainant was operating the JCB for excavation and loading of soil into vehicles. It is alleged that at that time, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons reached the spot, obstructed the government work, abused the complainant in filthy language, extended threats to kill him, and forcibly drove away the JCB and tractor from the spot. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR No. 0080/2026 has been registered at Police Station Manipur, District Surguja (C.G.) against the present applicant and other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 221, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Apprehending arrest in the aforesaid crime, the present applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely and unnecessarily implicated in the present case, whereas no offence as alleged is made out against him and none of the essential ingredients of the offences are attracted. It is further submitted that the case has been registered on account of a misconceived version of facts and is a result of a well-planned attempt to misuse administrative process. He submits that the applicant is the lawful owner of land bearing Khasra No. 3714, admeasuring 0.231 hectare, situated at Village Ambikapur, P.H. No. 15, R.N.M.-04, Tehsil Ambikapur, which was purchased by a 3 registered sale deed and mutation has already been duly recorded in his favour, the copy whereof is annexed as Annexure A-3. It is further submitted that after purchase of the said land, the applicant had submitted an application dated 16.02.2026 before the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur seeking permission for levelling of the land by filling soil, however, the same was returned/declined vide letter dated 11.03.2026 on the ground of jurisdiction, directing the applicant to approach the competent authority, which is annexed as Annexure A-4. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Tehsildar, Ambikapur and got demarcation of his land conducted on 12.03.2026, and subsequently also submitted application before the competent authority for development permission on 18.03.2026, the copies whereof are annexed as Annexure A-6 and A-7 respectively. It is further submitted that thereafter a notice dated 24.04.2026 was issued by the Municipal Corporation directing removal of soil on the ground of affecting nearby drainage, to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply, and the Tehsildar, Ambikapur also passed an order dated 13.04.2026 directing maintenance of status quo over the land, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure A-8 and A-9. Learned counsel further submits that on 02.05.2026, when the applicant reached the spot, allegedly JCB work was being carried out without any authority of any competent ofÏcer, and upon the applicant showing the status quo order, the persons present at the spot left the place, thereafter, a false report was lodged alleging obstruction in government work, whereas the complainant Ravi Shankar Pal is 4 neither a government employee nor authorised to carry out any ofÏcial work. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non - applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present case discloses commission of serious offences, wherein the applicant along with other co-accused persons has obstructed lawful government work being carried out pursuant to an order of the competent authority and has also extended criminal intimidation and abuses to the complainant, thereby disturbing public order and interference in discharge of ofÏcial duties. It is further submitted that the defence taken by the applicant regarding ownership of land, permissions, and status quo order are all disputed questions of fact which require detailed investigation and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the applicant’s conduct in allegedly preventing execution of government work and driving away machinery prima facie reflects active participation. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, nature of allegations and requirement of proper investigation, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material 5 available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute primarily arises out of execution/levelling work over the land in question, which is claimed by the applicant to be his own purchased land duly supported by registered sale deed, mutation entries, demarcation proceedings and orders passed by the revenue/competent authorities, and further it also appears that prior applications for permission and subsequent communications/orders regarding the said land are already part of record. It is also noticed that the applicant has raised a specific defence that a status quo order was in operation and the alleged incident occurred in the context of ongoing administrative proceedings regarding the land, whereas the allegations of obstruction, abuse and criminal intimidation are matters of evidence requiring trial. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Azad Iraqi on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, 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 Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be 6 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 his 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 Rahul Dewangan