1 CGHC010247852026 2026:CGHC:27743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1024 of 2026 Gulshan Singh @ Viru Thakur S/o Nirmal Singh Thakur, Aged About 33 Years R/o 39(1) Ram Prasad Marg, Police Station And Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 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. 172/2026 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 324, 331, 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.07 17:35:44 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.05.2026, a written complaint was lodged at Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) by the complainant namely Smt. Pushpa Yadav, daily wage worker, alleging that on 20-05-2026 at 8 PM the applicant Gulshan Singh @Viru Veeru Thakur along with Pritam Prem Thakur engaged in quarrel/dispute with the son of complainant namely Yuvraj Yadav on account of amount due by Yuraj to the applicant. That, on 05-2026 the applicant Gulshan Singh @Viru Thakur along with Prem Thakur at 2AM night trespassed in the adjacent house of the complainant which belonged to her brother-in-law but was vacant and damaged the Pulsar bike CG 28 NS 160, and other properties of daily utilities by using a crowbar(sabbal). That it is also the case of the prosecution that upon hearing the sound created by such destruction complainant along with other family members ran towards the adjacent house. That upon seeing the family members the applicant along with the co-accused escaped through the door at the rooftop as the main door was shut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has been fully cooperating with the investigation and is ready to cooperate further as and when required. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is doubtful and unsupported by any independent witness. According to the learned counsel, a monetary dispute existed between the applicant and the complainant's son, and owing to the influence of the complainant, whose relative is posted at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also 3 submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence and that certain other persons were present at the spot at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is a reputed person, the sole earning member of his family having two minor daughters aged about 1 and 3 years, and his arrest would cause severe financial hardship to his family. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and, therefore, prays that he be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that, as per the prosecution case, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant, it is alleged that the applicant, on account of a monetary dispute with the complainant's son, initially picked up a quarrel with him and thereafter, during the intervening night, along with the co-accused, criminally trespassed into the complainant's adjacent vacant house and caused damage to a motorcycle and other household articles by using a crowbar. It is further submitted that when the complainant and her family members reached the spot after hearing the noise, the applicant and the co-accused fled from the place of occurrence. Learned State counsel further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, including Crime Nos. 31 of 2016, 283 of 2018, 138 of 2024, 46 of 2025 and 14 of 2018, besides four Istgasa cases registered against him, which clearly reflect his criminal propensity. Therefore, considering the serious nature of the allegations, the applicant's criminal antecedents, and the material 4 collected during the investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be dismissed. 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 and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the investigation, and further taking into consideration the criminal antecedents of the applicant, including Crime Nos. 31 of 2016, 283 of 2018, 138 of 2024, 46 of 2025 and 14 of 2018, besides four Istgasa cases registered against him, which prima facie reflect his criminal propensity, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. No exceptional circumstance has been brought on record warranting the grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Gulshan Singh @ Viru Thakur, involved in Crime No. 172/2026 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 324, 331, 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav