1 2026:CGHC:4734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 129 of 2026 Shailesh Tiwari S/o Vidya Prasad Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o Sattipara, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 28.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred the third anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.782/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur District – Surguja (C.G.) for the commission of 2 offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 118(1) & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 21.10.2025, the complainant lodged a written report stating that on the occasion of the Diwali festival, he was returning to his home on a motorcycle after purchasing firecrackers from the P.G. College Ground. At about 12:30 a.m., when he reached near Sindhu Parishad Gali, his motorcycle suddenly stopped and a firecracker fell down on the road. When the complainant stopped his vehicle and bent down to pick up the firecracker, at that time, the applicant arrived there armed with a sword and assaulted the complainant on his left leg, as a result of which the complainant sustained an injury. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged regarding the said incident. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that and the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. The evidence collected by the prosecution does not prima facie establish the guilt of the applicant, and he has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. In fact, the complainant and other persons were allegedly indulging in gambling activities behind the house of the applicant, to which the applicant objected, and as a result thereof, a false and concocted FIR has been lodged against him. The applicant has not assaulted the 3 complainant in any manner, and the injury sustained by the complainant is not grievous in nature. The applicant is a permanent resident of Sattipara, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), undertakes to furnish adequate surety, and is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the present applicants and submitted that the charge sheet has not been filed. She further submits that the present applicant assaulted injured resulting in grievous injuries. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the material available in the case diary, and further taking into account that the present applicant is the main accused, who is alleged to have inflicted injuries upon the victim by means of a sword, as a result of which the victim sustained grievous injuries, and further considering that the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused, namely Khushi Ram Yadav, has already been rejected by this Court, and having regard to the seriousness of 4 the offence, as well as the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants Shailesh Tiwari, involved in Crime No.782/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur District – Surguja (C.G.) for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 118(1) & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav