1 2026:CGHC:26624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 973 of 2026 Dharmendra Kumar Yadav S/o Sunil Kumar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chamari Khurd, Police And Tehsil - Chapara, District Seoni M.P. Present Address Kesariya Dhaba Nadi Mod, Ghodari, P.S., Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anusha Naik, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 185/2024 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.01 11:13:22 +0530 2 Sections 294, 323, 506, 326 and 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.04.2024 at about 01:00 A.M., the complainant, along with his family members and friends, had gone to Kesariya Dhaba, Mahasamund, for dinner. During their visit, some children accompanying the complainant were allegedly playing cricket in the parking area of the dhaba, whereupon certain employees of the dhaba objected and challenged them to play a cricket match on a monetary wager. When the complainant’s side objected, a verbal altercation ensued. It is alleged that thereafter the owner of the dhaba, Randhir Singh Khanuja, along with other employees, arrived at the spot, abused the complainant party and assaulted them with fists, kicks, sword, iron rod, cricket bat and sticks, causing injuries to several persons. The accused persons allegedly threatened to kill the complainant party and chased them from the spot. It is further alleged that co-accused Harmeet Singh Khanuja assaulted the complainant with a sword and subsequently extended threats over the phone. The prosecution further alleges that two members of the complainant’s family were wrongfully confined inside the dhaba premises, assaulted, and deprived of their mobile phone, gold chain and cash. On the basis of the written report, Crime No. 185/2024 was registered at Police Station- Mahasamund, for the relevant offences and, during the course of investigation, the present applicant, being one of the employees of the dhaba, was also implicated as one of the assailants. Investigation is stated to 3 be pending. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of omnibus and general allegations, without any specific overt act being attributed to him either in the FIR or in the material collected during the course of investigation. It is contended that the present case arises out of a free fight between both parties, as is evident from the fact that a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 184/2024 was also registered at the instance of Kesariya Dhaba in respect of the very same incident for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 323 and 506-B of the IPC against members of the complainant party. It is further submitted that the accused persons in the said counter case have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1233/2025 and MCRCA No. 600/2024 vide orders dated 13.08.2025 and 12.06.2024, respectively. Learned counsel submits that several persons from both sides sustained injuries, indicating that the occurrence was a mutual fight and that the precise genesis of the incident, as well as the individual role and culpability of the respective accused persons, are matters to be determined during trial on the basis of evidence. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature and that the prosecution has implicated the present applicant along with co-accused Randhir Singh Khanuja, Harmeet Singh Khanuja and other accused persons primarily on the allegation of their 4 presence at the place of occurrence, without there being any clear or distinct attribution of individual acts at this stage of the investigation. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the existence of cross FIRs arising out of the same incident, the absence of any necessity for custodial interrogation, and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the present application be allowed and the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that a counter FIR arising out of the same incident has also been registered by the opposite side and the accused persons therein have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, and that members of both parties sustained simple injuries during the occurrence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, also considering the fact that the incident in question gave rise to registration of cross FIRs by both sides, the fact that the accused persons in the counter case have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, 5 the undisputed position that members of both sides sustained simple injuries in the same occurrence, and considering that the investigation is in progress and the individual role and culpability of the respective accused persons are matters which would be examined during the course of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should 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) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 6 (d) The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their 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) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav