1 2026:CGHC:25199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 902 of 2026 1. Ashok Kumar Norage S/o Chandram Norage Aged About 37 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Abhishek Norage S/o Prakash Norage Aged About 22 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Priyanka Suryawanshi W/o Ashok Kumar Suryawanshi Aged About 35 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Renuka Norage D/o Prakash Norage Aged About 21 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Prakash Norage S/o Chandram Norage Aged About 44 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Rashmi D/o Prakash Norage Aged About 40 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Pradeep Kumar Norage S/o Chandram Norage Aged About 38 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8. Suraj S/o Shatruhan Norage Aged About 30 Years R/o Rogada Tehsil- And P.S. Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicants versus ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.19 18:39:39 +0530 2 State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Akaltara District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 292/2026 registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 331(6), 351(3) and 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, namely Binu Nagore, lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The complainant and the applicants are relatives. It is alleged that on 27.03.2026, the children of the applicants and the complainant started quarrelling over a mobile phone. In the meanwhile, when the complainant intervened and stopped the children of the applicants, a brawl ensued. Consequently, the applicants lodged a report against the complainant, pursuant to which the complainant was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, upon being released on bail, the complainant lodged the present report against the applicants. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant herself stated in the report that, after an oral altercation 3 between the parties, both sides were counselled and sent back to their respective homes. However, only after the applicants lodged a report against the complainant did she file a counter First Information Report (F.I.R.) against them. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has lodged a false report, as the applicants were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident. The applicants have specifically taken the plea of alibi, which has been overlooked by the learned trial Court. It is also contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the report. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 27.03.2026, whereas the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged on 25.05.2026, after a delay of nearly two months. The complainant has sought to explain the delay on the ground that she was in jail during the intervening period. According to the learned counsel, this explanation itself renders the conduct of the complainant doubtful and raises serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. It is submitted that the case arises out of a single incident in respect of which cross F.I.Rs. have been lodged by both sides. It is further submitted that members of both parties sustained injuries in the said incident. It is further argued that the F.I.R. was initially lodged by the applicants' side, pursuant to which members of the complainant party, including minor children, were arrested by the police in connection with the said case. Thereafter, upon being released on bail, the complainant party lodged a counter F.I.R. against the present 4 applicants. It is also argued that a police personnel concerned was placed under suspension for failing to register the complainant's F.I.R. at the time of the incident. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the applicants are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the present case arises out of an incident in respect of which cross F.I.Rs. have been lodged by both sides. The record further reveals that members of both parties sustained injuries in the said occurrence. It is also not disputed that the complainant party, including minor children, was initially arrested in connection with the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants' side and thereafter lodged a counter F.I.R. against the present applicants. Moreover, the material brought on record indicates that the police personnel concerned was placed under suspension for failing to register the complainant's report at the relevant point of time, which prima facie lends credence to the complainant's grievance regarding non-registration of the F.I.R. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicants, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants, namely, Ashok Kumar Norage, Abhishek Norage, Priyanka Suryawanshi, Prakash Norage, Rashmi, Pradeep Kumar Norage, and Suraj , filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 292/2026 5 registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir – Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, 331(6), 351(3) and 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. So far as the applicant No.4 is concerned, she is a unmarried lady having no criminal antecedents, hence, at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 4, namely, Renuka Norage is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA with respect to the applicant No.4 is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.4 –Renuka Norage, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she 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 her 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 her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card alongwith a colored 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 herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek