1 2026:CGHC:22436-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1311 of 2026 Shravan Kumar S/o- Mohan Lal Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village- Ghutra, Police Station- Manendragarh, Tehsil- Kelhari, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Bain Bahadur, S/o- Ram Prasad Gond, Aged About 50 Years R/o- Village- Bundeli, Police Station- Jhagrakhand,tehsil, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sashwat Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sashwat Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and consequently stay the effect of FIR dated 22.11.2025, bearing Crime No. 204/2025, registered for offences punishable under Sections 106 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.), registered at the Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh by the Respondent No. 2 and further direct the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner during pendency of present petition, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the impugned F.I.R., which was initially registered against unknown persons. It is further submitted that the involvement of the petitioner has been introduced only after a lapse of three months from the date of the alleged incident, despite there being no material connecting him with the said accident. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the police authorities are exerting undue pressure upon him by making illegal demands for money in exchange for not implicating him in the matter. The petitioner has categorically denied any involvement in the alleged incident. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the investigation conducted so far has revealed the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. It is contended that merely because the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R., the 3 same does not absolve him of criminal liability, as his involvement surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency. Learned State counsel further submits that the allegations regarding false implication and illegal demand of money by the police authorities are baseless and have been raised only to evade the due process of law. It is also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted at this stage. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned F.I.R. was initially registered against unknown persons and the involvement of the petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation. At this stage, the investigation is still pending and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be conclusively determined by this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. The allegations made by the petitioner regarding false implication and illegal demand of money by the police authorities involve disputed questions of fact, which require proper investigation and cannot be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra