1 2026:CGHC:22317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 718 of 2026 • Hitesh Singh S/o Ganesh Bahadur Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o - Village Salka Tehsil Baikunthpur District -Korea C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines Rudri District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. This is 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.62/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, Rudri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(4), 319(2), 331(3), 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Konal Sahu lodged a written complaint at P.S Civil Lines, Rudri stating that on 25/11/2025 at 4:00 in the evening VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.14 11:28:03 +0530 2 Ramchand Dewangan along with 2 others entered into the house of the complainant stating that Ramchand Dewangan being the Superior officer of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) threatened to shoot the complainant at gun point and thereafter looted the complainant by looting electronic devices from the possession of the complainant. That, the complainant further states that during the course of burglarizing Ramchand Dewangan looted numerous electronic devices which have been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR which includes, (1). black colored Asus laptop, (2). Oneplus Pad, (3). Samsung fold 6, (4). One Plus 11R, (5). Realme C55, (6) Iphone 16 and other electronic devices. That, it has been further stated that during the course of investigation the investigation authorities were informed by an informer (Mukhabir) who informed that Ramchand Dewangan along with another was seen in a vehicle bearing No CG 16 CT 5657 near Arjuni and thereafter were served a notice of section 35(3) BNSS and on search all the looted electronic devices were recovered from the possession of Ramchand Dewangan & Nagendra Patel. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the CCTV footage, if reviewed, would clearly demonstrate that no incriminating act was committed by the two other persons allegedly involved in the incident. The recordings merely show three individuals entering the complainant’s residence; however, there is no footage depicting any act of looting or showing the alleged looted electronic devices. Furthermore, the said recordings have neither been referred to nor placed on record by the complainant. This omission strongly suggests that the complainant, 3 with mala fide intent, has falsely implicated the present applicant by concocting a fabricated story solely with a view to tarnish the applicant’s reputation. He further submits that co-accused person have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 in MCRC No.1231 of 2026 and 1333 of 2026. Further more investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that co-accused, namely, Ramchand Dewangan along with 2 others entered into the house of the complainant stating that Ramchand Dewangan being the Superior officer of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) threatened to shoot the complainant at gun point and thereafter looted the complainant by looting electronic devices from the possession of the complainant. Furthermore, he submits that merely because the co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 1231 of 2026 and 1333 of 2026, the same cannot by itself be made a ground for granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allegation levelled against the applicant and also considering the fact that merely because the co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.03.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 1231 of 2026 and 1333 of 2026, it cannot be a ground to grant him 4 anticipatory bail as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Hitesh Singh, filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.62/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, Rudri, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(4), 319(2), 331(3), 351(2) of BNS, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali