1 2026:CGHC:25658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 921 of 2026 Raj Pali, S/o- Shri Ajay Pali, Aged About 22 Years R/o- House No. 114, Near Gayatri Mata Mandir, Chantidih Ward No. 44, Chantidih, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 23.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.608/2026, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.06.23 14:49:19 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2026 at about 10:30 PM near RSK Academy, Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, a quarrel allegedly took place between the injured Anubhav Soni and the accused persons on account of previous enmity. It is alleged that the applicant Raj Pali along with co-accused Rishu Singh Thakur abused the injured and assaulted him with scissors, a stick and fists, causing injuries on his neck and left eye. The injured was thereafter admitted to Pratham Hospital, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, where he underwent treatment. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Ravi Kumar Soni, the present crime came to be registered against the applicant and the co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that applicant is a young boy aged about 22 year and the present FIR is a manifestation of the pre-existing enmity and strained relations between the parties. Further, even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, there is no role attributed to the present applicant in commission of any offence. Furthermore, the father of the applicant has also filed a complaint against the false allegation levelled against the applicant vide letter dated 07.05.2026. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender 3 having multiple criminal antecedents and is involved in several cases of similar nature. It was contended that the applicant, along with the co-accused, brutally assaulted the victim with fists, stick and scissors, causing grievous injuries on vital parts of the body including the eye and neck. It was further submitted that the victim is a young sportsperson and was targeted on account of previous animosity. The applicant is alleged to have been threatening and pressurizing the victim and his family members after registration of the FIR, thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation and interference with the investigation. Considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, it was argued that no case for grant of bail is made out and the application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the criminal antecedents attributed to the applicant, the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding intimidation of witnesses and interference with the course of investigation, this 4 Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Raj Pali, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.608/2026, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti