1 2026:CGHC:22074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 604 of 2026 Juvinille In Conflict With Law Nil ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urla, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.05.2026 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.71/2026 registered at Police Station –Urla, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 333, 351(2) R/w 3(5) of BNS. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.13 19:25:36 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Devanand Dhruv alleged that on 04.03.2026 at about 1:30 PM, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons came near the house of the complainant and started abusing in filthy language. It is alleged that when the complainant objected to such abusive conduct and requested them not to use obscene language in the presence of women nearby, the applicant and the co-accused persons became enraged and started hurling abuses at the complainant. Thereafter, the incident allegedly escalated into a physical assault, whereupon the complainant, in order to save himself, ran inside his house; however, the applicant and the co-accused allegedly trespassed into the house and assaulted him with fists and bricks. It is further alleged that due to the said assault, the complainant as well as another person who intervened in the matter sustained injuries and were subjected to medical treatment. Hence, the present FIR has been registered against the applicant and other co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and, in fact, it was the complainant party who assaulted the applicant, as a result of which he sustained injuries and had to be admitted to the 3 hospital. It is submitted that apprehending action against themselves, the complainant party lodged a false FIR against the applicant. Thereafter, upon recovery from his injuries, the applicant also lodged a report regarding the incident on 07.03.2026; however, despite the serious injuries sustained by the applicant, the police registered only bailable offences. Learned counsel further submits that the present applicant is a 17-year-old juvenile studying in Class 12 and has no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the allegation of causing injury by means of knife is specifically attributed to co-accused Dilkush Yadav, who has already been arrested, whereas the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured only by fists. It is further submitted that the injury caused by knife has also been found to be simple in nature. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the present applicant regarding his active participation in the incident. It is submitted that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, unlawfully entered the house of the complainant and assaulted the complainant party, causing injuries to them. Learned State counsel further submits 4 that merely because the specific allegation of causing knife injury is attributed to co-accused Dilkush Yadav would not absolve the present applicant from criminal liability, as he was also part of the unlawful assembly and actively participated in the assault. It is further submitted that the nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the manner in which the incident occurred, do not entitle the applicant to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the application be rejected. 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 applicant, the material available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration that the present applicant is a 17-year-old juvenile studying in Class 12 and has no criminal antecedents, that the specific allegation of causing injury by means of knife is attributed to co- accused Dilkush Yadav, who has already been arrested, whereas the present applicant is alleged to have assaulted the injured only by fists, and further considering that the injury caused by knife has been found to be simple in nature, this Court is 5 inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Juvinille In Conflict With Law Nil 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 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 Arpan