1 CGHC010253812026 2026:CGHC:27736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1034 of 2026 1 - Nilima Das Vaishnav W/o Dhruvdas Vaishnav Aged About 66 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Srishti Colony K Pass Kamla College Road Ward No. 45 Kaurinbhatha P.S. Basantpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (As Per FIR) 2 - Dhruvdas Vaishnav S/o Late Ramdas Aged About 70 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar Srishti Colony K Pass Kamla College Road Ward No. 45 Kaurinbhatha P.S. Basantpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (As Per FIR ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P.S. Basantpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Ashish Gangwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sangarsh Pandey, G.A. For complainant : Shri Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri 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 have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.295/2026 registered at Police Station – Basantpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 318(4), 351(2), 329, 331(2), 3(5) of BNS. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.07.07 11:16:41 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim appeared before the Police Station and submitted a written complaint stating that she is the owner of a house situated on Khasra No. 320/1, admeasuring 0.041 hectares, at Vaishali Nagar, near Kamala College, Rajnandgaon. After constructing the house, she locked it in the year 2006 and went to the United States. Upon her return to India, she came to know that one Dhruv Vaishnav had, by preparing a forged rent agreement, let out her house to his relative, Alok Vaishnav. Thereafter, she submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police. During the inquiry, the Police Station Basantpur summoned Alok Vaishnav, who stated that he would vacate the house and hand over its possession to the complainant on 16.06.2026. Accordingly, after the house was vacated, it was locked on 17.06.2026. On the morning of 18.06.2026, when the complainant visited the house, she found that the lock was missing. She was informed by the neighbouring residents that during the previous night, Dhruv Vaishnav and his wife had broken the lock and illegally entered the house. When the complainant asked them to vacate the premises, they allegedly refused, stating that she could do whatever she wanted and that she could not harm them, as Dhruv Vaishnav had previously served as a police officer and had influential contacts. It is further alleged that they abused the complainant, pushed her, and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR dated 19.06.2026 was registered at Police Station Basantpur as Crime No. 295/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 318(4), 329, 331(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, this anticipatory bail application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is a dispute between the applicants and the complainant for eviction of the house in which the applicants are living. He would further submit that the complainant just as a pressure tactics has lodged the present FIR. He would submit that the applicants are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court, applicants are permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title and there is no chance of their absconding, therefore he prays to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant also oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the complainant never executed any agreement with the applicants in respect of the house in question. In reply, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had sought reasonable time of at least two months to vacate the premises. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicants and also considering the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take some time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 4 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Nilima Das Vaishnav & Dhruvdas Vaishnav, on each of them executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicants 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri